Rosenblatt v. Multin

• Decision Date: 21 June 1949
• Docket Number: No. 27625.,27625.
• Citation: 222 S.W.2d 587
• Parties: ROSENBLATT v. MULTIN et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

222 S.W.2d 587

ROSENBLATT v. MULTIN et al.

No. 27625.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 21, 1949.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Supreme Court Denied September 16, 1949.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. H. Killoren, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action by Nat Rosenblatt against Morris Multin and others, doing business as the Silver Creek Liquor Company, to recover broker's commission. From a verdict and judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

N. Murry Edwards and Ninian M. Edwards, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Irl Baris, St. Louis, Sylvan Agatstein, St. Louis, for respondents.

ANDERSON, Presiding Judge.

This is a suit by a real estate broker, Nat Rosenblatt, against defendants for a commission alleged to have been earned by plaintiff in procuring a purchaser for defendants' parking lot located at Eighth and Market Streets in the City of St. Louis. The defendants denied that plaintiff located, found and produced said purchaser. From a verdict and judgment for defendants, plaintiff appealed.

The defendants are engaged in the retail liquor business, operating as partners under the name of Silver Creek Liquor Company. The members of the partnership are Morris Multin, Bessie Multin, Eugene Multin, Marie Multin Cocoran, Sidney Moultin, Abraham Multin, and Isadore Multin. Morris Multin is the general manager of the business, and it was stipulated at the trial that all his acts in connection with the conduct of the partnership business should be considered as binding on the other partners.

In March, 1944, defendants acquired a vacant lot on the southwest corner of Eighth and Market Streets in the City of St. Louis, directly across the street from one of their liquor stores. At that time the lease on defendants' store was about to expire, and defendants, being apprehensive that the lease could not be renewed, purchased the lot with the intent to build thereon in the event they were not successful in renewing the lease.

The lot in question was thereafter leased to John Stewart who operated a parking lot thereon. The defendants' lease of the liquor store was renewed in 1945. Thereafter, plaintiff talked to Morris Multin three or four times about selling the parking lot, but was not successful in securing a listing of it. Thus matters stood until May or June of 1947. About that time Morris Multin informed plaintiff that the partnership was in need of money. Plaintiff then suggested that he sell the lot in question.

Plaintiff testified that on June 17, 1947, Morris Multin told him to "go ahead and sell this lot." Plaintiff further testified that during the conversation Morris Multin said he "wanted $70,000 for the lot and not one dime less." Plaintiff further testified that he requested a six months' listing, but Morris Multin refused the request, stating: "I will give you until September 1st, not one day longer." Plaintiff stated he replied: "That is fair enough."

On cross-examination, plaintiff testified:

"Q. And on June 17th he said to you, `I want $70,000, not a dime less.' A. That is right.

"Q. And he also made a statement, according to your deposition: `Don't come back with any of your real estate chiselers, because I won't stand for it.' A. That is correct.

"Q. He said that to you? A. Or words to that effect.

"Q. And you said: `All right, Morris.' You also recall that you asked to be given a six months' period within which to find a buyer? A. That is correct.

"Q. And he said `No.' That he would give you to September 1st, and not one day later? A. That is correct.

"Q. And you said: `All right, that is a deal?' A. Yes.

"Q. That was your understanding, that you were to sell that lot for $70,000, not one cent less, is that correct? A. Yes. As far as what he would take for it, that is up to him. * * * He said he wouldn't take less than $70,000; that is what he told me.

"Q. And he said he wouldn't give you beyond September 1st? A. That is correct.

"Q. And you agreed to that? A. That is right."

On re-direct examination, plaintiff testified:

"There was no provision made for any cancellation before September 1st.

"Q. Was that an exclusive listing? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Just state what was said between you and Morris about payment of commission when he gave you the listing on June 17, 1947. A. There was nothing said about the rate of commission. * * * He said: `You will get your commission. You bring a customer for that lot. You sell the lot, you will get the commission,' but nothing was said about the amount of the commission."

Defendant Morris Multin's testimony with reference to the terms of plaintiff's employment was as follows:

"Q. What was said by him and by you? A. What was said? He thinks he can get me a customer and will sell the lot for $70,000.

"Q. Who suggested the price? A. He did. * * * It was stated that he could possibly sell the lot for $70,000. * * * He had a customer; that he thought he could get $70,000. * * * and I said if he can get $70,000 it is a sale right now.

"Q. Did you say anything to him with respect to taking any less than $70,000? A. No, there was no conversation, he proposed 70, and I accepted it.

"Q. Did you say you wouldn't take a cent less? A. I don't remember exactly those words. All I knew, it was $70,000.

"Q. * * * did he ask you anything about the length of time he would have to bring you a customer? * * * A. It seems to me it must have been in the second conversation that the approach was made of the time, he said that this man had some property and he would probably have to make a trade in order to get $70,000, that takes time, we would like to have some time for it. I agreed with him and I said: `that is all right. I think that ought to be consummated in 30 days.' `No, 30 days is not enough time.' `Well, we will discuss that later. I am not going to argue about that. If it takes fifteen more days it wouldn't make much more difference. However, if a customer comes by and brings $70,000, I am not going to worry about the time, if he brings me the money.' That is the conversation."

Plaintiff testified that prior to June 17, 1947, Hyman Multin made inquiry of him in regard to a piece of property he had advertised for sale and, during the course of the conversation, stated that he had money to invest and was interested in a downtown parking lot. He stated that when he secured this listing on defendants' lot he called Hyman Multin and told him of it and that the latter asked what defendants wanted for the lot. Plaintiff further testified: "I said: `$75,000. You might be able to buy it for 70, I don't know.' So he said: `I will tell you what, I have got to go over to the stockyards tomorrow * * * next day I will meet you over there (defendants' store) at 1:00 o'clock * * *.' I said: `That is fine.' Knowing Mr. Hyman Multin went there, I thought it best to register his name with Morris or someone in the store. * * * The next morning I got downtown exceptionally early and I went into the 905 Liquor Store and Morris Multin was at the counter * * * talking with someone at the bar, and his brothers Isadore and Sidney were sitting down at a table having coffee. As I approached the table Sidney said: `Have you sold the lot yet?' In a joking way, and I said: `No, I haven't, but I have got a very good prospect for it.' He said: `Who is that?' I said: `A cousin of yours, Hyman Multin.' Then he laughed — he said: `Oh, that fellow won't buy it.' I said: `Why not?' He said: `He is a chisler, he wants to steal it.' I said: `I grant you that, but he is interested in the lot, I have a date with him tomorrow to meet him here to show the boundary lines of the lot to him.' `Oh,' he said, `you will waste your time,' but he said: `go ahead, go ahead and see if you can sell him.' The subject was changed, we talked about some thing else, perhaps we were sitting there five or ten minutes, my back was toward the door, the entrance of the 905 that is on the Eighth Street side, and Sidney tapped me on the shoulder. He said, `Nat, turn around and see who is coming in the door,' and as I did, Hyman Multin walked in the door; I don't believe he saw me, but he saw Morris talking at the bar to this other gentleman and he stepped aside and waited until he was through. * * * I told the boys, I said: `You better tip Morris off, he is interested in buying this lot, not to quote any price on the lot.' Isadore said: `Don't worry about Morris.' He said: `Morris don't like him and won't give him any information whatever.' I don't know what Hyman Multin said to Morris Multin, but I do know this — a few minutes later Mr. Morris Multin, in a very loud voice, said: `Don't talk to me about that lot, talk to Rosenblatt, he is my real estate man, he is sitting over there,' and he pointed at me. At that I got up and Hyman saw me and walked toward me and he said: `Nat, I was just going by, I thought I would stop by and tell Morris that you submitted the lot to me.' And I said, `Yes, I thought you would do that, that is the reason I stopped down here this morning and registered your name, but I wouldn't want to make a deal without you.' He said: `After all, it wouldn't be right.' We talked a few minutes and finally I said, `Let me take you across the street and show you the boundary lines,' which I did. I showed him the boundary lines. * * * Hyman and I went across the street to the southwest corner of Eighth and Market, and during the course of the conversation Hyman said, `Well, what is the lot renting for?' I said, `I believe it is renting for $505 or $510 a month.' He said, `That is not enough money for what he is asking for it.' * * * I told him I had a prospect, in fact I had several prospects that were interested in taking a ten year lease on the lot at around $7,200 a year, and would put up six months' deposit as credit on the lot. He said: `That is the only condition that I would buy the lot, if I got a good tenant in there on a ten year...