Randle v. Bloomfield
Decision Date | 26 January 1912 |
Parties | RANDLE v. BLOOMFIELD. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.
Action by S. T. Randle against L. M. Bloomfield. From a judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals, and defendant prosecutes a cross-appeal. Affirmed on both appeals.
Miller & Miller, for appellant.
Hendrick & Crice, for appellee.
The appellee, Mrs. L. M. Bloomfield, owned a valuable tract of land, consisting of 70 acres, lying in the immediate neighborhood of the city of Paducah. On February 28, 1910 she entered into a written contract with the appellant, S. T Randle, a real estate agent of Paducah, whereby she sold to said Randle the sole right, for a period of nine months from the date thereof, to buy said tract of land for the sum of $10,000, of which $5,000 was to be paid in cash, and the balance in one and two years thereafter, or upon such other terms as might thereafter be agreed upon. Another provision of the contract provided that Mrs. Bloomfield should pay Randle a commission of all over the purchase price for his services, and if Mrs. Bloomfield should sell the property, or any part thereof, to a purchaser within the time stated, who had not been secured by Randle, or as a result of his advertising, she had the right to do so; and, in that case Randle should be entitled to only one-half of the above commission. The contract was drawn by Randle, and is somewhat anomalous in its nature, in that it partakes of the double nature of an option and an agency. If it be treated as an option, it was without consideration, and subject to revocation at the pleasure of either party. Since the parties, however, treated it as a contract of agency, whereby Randle was employed to sell the land, we will so consider it.
Several of the prominent and leading citizens of Paducah had in contemplation the formation of a country club, and it was thought by some of them that the Bloomfield place would be a desirable location. A few days after the contract was made Mr. Wallace Weil met Mrs. Bloomfield and asked her if she would sell her place, whereupon she instructed him to see Mr. Randle, her agent. Weil called upon Randle, who agreed to sell the 70 acres for $12,500. Weil reported the result of his conversation to Mr. J. L. Friedman, who was one of the leading men in the proposed organization of a country club, whereupon Friedman directed Weil to close the trade; and, in doing so, Friedman gave Randle a check for $200, whereupon Randle wrote and signed the following receipt: Wheeler, who was named as trustee, was not consulted about the payment of the money, or the form of the receipt, although he previously had been in consultation with the other gentlemen upon the subject of forming a country club. The plan seems to have been Friedman's, by which he paid this earnest money to hold the property until the club could be organized and take the property off of Friedman's hands and reimburse him for the money he had paid. The country club was never organized; but, shortly after the payment of the $200, Randle delivered certain deeds for the Bloomfield property to Wheeler for the purpose of having him prepare the deed. Wheeler...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Odem Realty Co. v. Dyer
... ... broker is entitled to his commission whether or not the ... principal completes the transaction. Randle v ... Bloomfield, 146 Ky. 421, 142 S.W. 677; Fowler v ... Thomson, 193 Ky. 593, 236 S.W. 1047; Kock v ... Emmerling, 22 How. 69, 16 L ... ...
-
Odem Realty Company v. Dyer
...by the principal, the broker is entitled to his commission whether or not the principal completes the transaction. Randle v. Bloomfield, 146 Ky. 421, 142 S.W. 677; Fowler v. Thomson, 193 Ky. 593, 236 S.W. 1047; Kock v. Emmerling, 22 How. 69, 16 L. Ed. 292; Beougher v. Clark, 81 Kan. 250, 10......
-
Knoechelmann's Administrator v. Knoechelmann
...broker is entitled to his commission when he completes his part of the contract, whatever the parties thereafter may do. Randle v. Bloomfield, 146 Ky. 421, 142 S.W. 677; Fowler v. Thomson, 193 Ky. 593, 236 S.W. 1047; Kock v. Emmerling, 22 How. 69, 16 L. Ed. 292. But it is argued that the de......
-
T.W. Sandford & Co. v. Waring
... ... authorities supra. Murphy v. Sawyer & Warford, 152 ... Ky. 645, 153 S.W. 991; Randle v. Bloomfield, 146 Ky ... 421, 142 S.W. 677; Phillips Ex'r v. Rudy, 146 ... Ky. 780, 143 S.W. 397; Giltner v. McCoombs P. & Refining ... Co., 190 ... ...