Reams v. Wilson

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CLARK
• Citation: Reams v. Wilson, 147 N.C. 304, 60 S.E. 1124 (N.C. 1908)
• Decision Date: 08 April 1908
• Parties: REAMS . v. WILSON.

60 S.E. 1124

147 N.C. 304

REAMS .

v.WILSON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 8, 1908.

1. Brokers—Compensation—Termination of — Contract of Employment — Quantum Meruit.

Where a broker was employed to sell property under express agreement that, in lieu of commissions for making the sale, he should receive all he could get for the property over $1,400. he was, on procuring a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, entitled to recover from the owner the amount which the purchaser secured by him was willing to pay for the prop-erty in excess of the $1,400, and was not limited to a quantum meruit recovery for services rendered, though the owner had himself sold the land before the broker's sale was reported to him.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 8, Brokers, § 50.]

2. Work and Labor — Quantum Meruit — Grounds for Recovery — Effect of Express Contract.

Where there is a valid express contract relating to compensation for services rendered, recovery therefor on a quantum meruit will not lie.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol 50, Work and Labor, §§ 23, 28 1/2.]

3. Principal and Agent — Revocation by Principal—Notice to Agent—Necessity.

In order to revoke an agency, a principal must give his agent notice of the revocation.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Principal and Agent, § 60.]

4. Brokers—Revocation of Agency—Notice —Failure to Give Notice—Effect.

Where an express agreement made between the owner of property and a broker employed by him to sell the property required notice of revocation of the agency to be given to the broker, the broker, on procuring a purchaser, was entitled to compensation according to the terms of the contract, though the principal had revoked the agency by himself selling the property, where no notice of such revocation was given to the broker.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. S. Brokers, § 45.]

5. Same—Amount of Compensation.

Where no agreement as to compensation was made between an owner of property and a broker employed by him to make a sale thereof, the broker on procuring a purchaser could recover on a quantum meruit for his services in making the sale at th« price he did, though the principal had previously revoked the agency by selling the property without the broker's knowledge, and not merely compensation for services up to the time of the revocation of the agency.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 8, Brokers, § 55.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Webb, Judge.

Action by Henry A. Reams against H. F. Wilson for compensation for procuring a purchaser for defendant's property. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

W. W. Mason and Giles & Sykes, for appellant.

R. O. Everett and Manning & Foushee, for appellee.

CLARK, C. J. The uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff is that in December, 1900, the defendant placed in his hands a piece of property to sell at $1,400, with a stipulation that, in lieu of commissions, the plaintiff was to have all he could get over $1,400, and that it was agreed, further, between them that the defendant would not dispose of the property without giving the plaintiff notice; that in February the plaintiff sold the property for $1,500 to a party "ready, able, and willing" to pay for it, but, on...