Pasley v. Newton, 25283
| Citation | 455 S.W.2d 43 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25283,25283 |
| Parties | John PASLEY, Administrator d/b/n of the Estate of Richard I. Thompson, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mary R. Pratt NEWTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Charles C. Shafer, Jr., Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
Arthur R. Kincaid, Robert E. Coleberd, Liberty, for plaintiff-respondent.
This action, in two counts, was originally instituted by Richard I. Thompson, now deceased, who in his lifetime was a licensed real estate broker. In count one of his petition he sought to recover of defendant, Mary R. Pratt, (now Mary R. Pratt Newton), a real estate commission for services rendered defendant in her purchase of a tract of land from one Mrs. M. Pearl Davidson. In count two he undertook to recover $2,000.00 from defendant for money he claimed to have loaned her to complete the transaction.
Richard I. Thompson died on March 5, 1968, during pendency of the action, and his wife, Ruby P. Thompson, who had been appointed administratrix of his estate, was substituted as party plaintiff in his stead. Ruby P. Thompson died November 3, 1968. Thereafter, and prior to trial, John Pasley was appointed administrator, de bonis non, of Richard I. Thompson's estate and substituted as party plaintiff in the action.
The case was tried on February 17, 1969 and submitted to a jury which returned a verdict upon count one for plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of $5,500.00. In their verdict on count two they found the issues in favor of defendant. Defendant has appealed from the judgment. Plaintiff has not.
The essential allegations of count one are that plaintiff (Mr. Thompson) was a real estate broker, duly licensed in Missouri with offices in the City of Liberty; that prior to the 19th day of July, 1967, he was authorized by defendant to act as her agent in the proposed purchase of certain real estate located in Clay County, then owned by one M. Pearl Davidson; that on July 19th, 1967, so acting as defendant's agent, plaintiff 'was able to procure from the said M. Pearl Davidson a contract in writing to sell said real estate on terms acceptable to defendant and the said defendant did execute said written agreement on said date'; that the consideration for the sale agreed upon was $55,000.00; and, that plaintiff is entitled to receive for his services as such agent a commission of 10%, amounting to $5,500.00. No reference to the contents of count two of the petition is necessary for the purposes of this appeal.
The allegations of count one, the submission of the issues raised, and the jury's verdict are amply supported by the evidence.
Mrs. Margaret Weagley, daughter of the previously mentioned M. Pearl Davidson was called as plaintiff's witness. She testified that on July 19, 1967, her mother went to the office of an attorney in Liberty, to meet and confer with Mr. Thompson, who had previously called her and requested that she do so. Mrs. Weagley accompanied her mother and was present during the meeting. She identified plaintiff's Exhibit 1 as a copy of a contract for the purchase of land her mother signed in her presence on the occasion above noted, pursuant to an agreement between her mother and Mrs. Pratt that Mr. Thompson had arranged. There were three copies of the instrument and 'all copies were given to Mr. Thompson for Mrs. Pratt to sign'. Two days later another meeting was held at which Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Pratt and Mrs. Weagley and her husband were present. By that time Mrs. Pratt had signed the contract. In addition to the signatures of Mrs. Davidson and Mrs. Pratt, the instrument also bore the signature of 'R. I. Thompson, Agent for Second Party.' All three signatories received copies of the contract and Mrs. Davidson received $7,500.00 as down payment on the transaction.
Exhibit No. 1 was offered and received in evidence and read to the jury. At the time of the offer the trial court specifically inquired of defendant's counsel whether he had 'any objection based upon the fact that's not the contract your client signed'. Counsel answered, 'No'. Pertinent portions of the contract are here quoted:
'THIS AGREEMENT, Made this 19th day of July 1967, by and between M. Pearl Davidson, first party, and Mary R. Pratt, second party, all of Clay County, Missouri, WITNESSETH:
'That for and in consideration of the aggregate sum of $55,000.00 to be paid by second party to first party at the times and in the manner hereinafter set forth, first party sells and agrees to convey to second party all of the following described real estate in Liberty, Clay County, Missouri, to-wit: (description of the subject real estate)
'Of said purchase price the sum of $7,500.00 is now here paid, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged. * * *
It is further understood and agreed Richard I. Thompson, duly licensed real estate broker in Liberty, Missouri, is the agent of second party and that no sales commission of any kind is due from first party.'
(Emphasis supplied.)
In witness whereof, the parties have set their hands to three copies of this agreement, each an original, one for each of the parties hereto and one for said Richard I. Thompson, all on the day and year first above written.
Both Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Thompson died before the contract was fully executed.
Official public records of Clay County show that the contract of purchase was consummated during administration of the estate of Mrs. Davidson by Mrs. Weagley as administratrix. On August 15, 1968, a petition bearing the notarized signature of Mary R. Pratt was filed in the Probate Court of Clay County. Representing therein that she had entered into written agreement with Mrs. Davidson on July 19, 1967, whereby the latter became obligated to sell and convey to her certain real estate, she prayed the court's order requiring the administratrix to comply with the terms of the contract and, upon receipt of additional consideration specified in the contract, to convey the property to petitioner by warranty deed. The probate court duly granted the petition and thereafter the administratrix, pursuant to appropriate orders of the court, conveyed the property to petitioner in fee by her 'Administratrix's Deed' duly recorded.
Robert Hufft, a licensed real estate broker of Liberty, Missouri, doing business as such in Clay County, was also called as a witness on behalf of plaintiff. He testified that he was acquainted with Richard I. Thompson in his lifetime and knew that his business was 'real estate'. He identified plaintiff's Exhibit 7 as Mr. Thompson's official real estate broker's license for the years 1967--68, issued by the Missouri Real Estate Commission and certified by Marvin W. Camp, its secretary. The witness testified that it was the customary practice in his profession as a real estate broker to charge commissions, and that the customary commission rates had been established by the members of the Real Estate Board at six per cent on improved areas and ten per cent on unimproved areas. Mr. Hufft stated that in his opinion a reasonable and proper real estate commission for services rendered by Richard I. Thompson as the representative of Mary R. Pratt in securing the execution of the real estate contract in question would be ten per cent of the purchase price, amounting to $5,500.00.
Defendant took the stand on her own behalf and undertook to testify as to transactions with Mr. Thompson in person relating to the matters in issue. Offers of such testimony were refused by the court as being in violation of V.A.M.S. § 491.010, the so-called 'Dead Man's Statute'. Defendant on cross-examination admitted that she paid an 'additional $7,500.00 plus interest' to the administratrix of Mrs. Davidson's estate, and signed a promissory note for $40,000.00 (also payable to the administratrix) together with a deed of trust, and that she 'now' (as of trial date) owned and was in possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frisella v. Reserve Life Ins. Co. of Dallas, Tex., 40072
...Lumber Co. v. Cox, 521 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.App.1975); Wilkerson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 510 S.W.2d 50 (Mo.App.1974); Pasley v. Newton, 455 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.1970); Manning v. McAllister, 454 S.W.2d 597 (Mo.App.1970). The Frisellas are correct in their contention that the failure to move......
-
Cragin v. Lobbey
...by introducing evidence of his own after denial of the motion. Daniels v. Smith, 323 S.W.2d 705, 706(1) (Mo.1959); Pasley v. Newton, 455 S.W.2d 43, 46--47(2) (Mo.App.1970); Hoevelman v. Reorganized Sch. D. R2 of Crawford County, 452 S.W.2d 298, 300(2) (Mo.App.1970); Jacobs v. Frangos, 329 S......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Heim
... ... The averment of error in the motion for new trial preserved nothing for review. Pasley v. Newton, Mo.App., 455 S.W.2d 43, 47--48(3, 4). Moreover, by comparing the allegation of trial ... ...
-
Skelton v. General Candy Co., 36912
...be 'sufficiently definite to direct the court's attention to the particular acts or rulings asserted to be erroneous.' Pasley v. Newton, 455 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Mo.App.1970). The purpose of these rules is to give the trial judge one last opportunity to correct his errors without the delay, expen......