Salisbury v. Alskog
| Decision Date | 13 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20480. |
| Citation | 144 Wash. 88,256 P. 1030 |
| Parties | SALISBURY v. ALSKOG et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Card, Judge.
Action by O. Salisbury against Alex Alskog and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Rickabaugh & McElroy, of Tacoma, for appellants.
Louis J. Muscek, of Tacoma, for respondent.
Respondent by the judgment appealed from, was allowed the recovery of a commission on the sale of a lease, good will, and the furniture of a rooming house in the city of Tacoma. The judgment debtors, appealing from that judgment, assign a number of errors, one of which is that the respondent was not the procuring cause of the sale, but upon this point we find the trial court was well sustained by the evidence. We find it necessary to discuss only one of the other errors assigned.
The contract employing the agent was in writing and complied with the statute of frauds. It was entered into prior to the enactment of chapter 129 of the Laws of Extraordinary Session of 1925, but there is a serious dispute of fact as to whether the sale was made before or after that act took effect. On this question the trial court found in favor of the respondent, but, as we interpret the act, that is immaterial.
The act in question provides, in section 4:
'Within the meaning of this act, a real estate broker is a person who, for a compensation or promise thereof, performs one or more acts of selling or offering for sale, buying or offering to buy, negotiating or offering to negotiate, either directly or indirectly, whether as an employee of another or otherwise, the purchase, sale, exchange, lease or rental of real estate or interest therein for another person.'
It further provides for the licensing of real estate brokers makes it unlawful for any person to act as a real estate broker without a license, and section 20 reads:
'No suit or action shall be brought in the courts of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any of the acts mentioned in section 5 hereof, without alleging and proving that the plaintiff was a duly licensed real estate broker at the time the alleged cause of action arose.'
This is a penal act, and must be strictly construed. So construing it, we are unable to escape the conclusion that the selling of a lease or a leasehold interest in real estate does not come within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northport Power & Light Co. v. Hartley
...190 N. W. 225; State ex rel. Winston v. Morrison, 18 Wash. 664, 52 P. 228; Myers v. Arthur, 135 Wash. 583, 238 P. 899; Salisbury v. Alskog, 144 Wash. 88, 256 P. 1030; Humphrey v. Krutz, 77 Wash. 152, 157, 137 P. 806; Columbus, etc., Co. v. Columbus, 249 U. S. 399, 39 S. Ct. 349, 63 L. Ed. 6......
-
In re Barclay's Estate, 27678.
... ... See ... Taylor v. Basye, 119 Wash. 263, 205 P. 16; Myers ... v. Arthur, 135 Wash. 583, 238 P. 899; Salisbury v ... Alskog, 144 Wash. 88, 256 P. 1030; Sakris v. Eagle ... Indemnity Co., 176 Wash. 73, 28 P.2d 316; Irons ... Investment Co. v ... ...
-
Irons Inv. Co. v. Richardson
...or rental of real estate or any interest therein for another person. Construing section 8340-4 we held, in the case of Salisbury v. Alskog, 144 Wash. 88, 256 P. 1030, the words 'lease or rental,' as used in the statute, mean but one thing; that is, the procuring of a tenant. What the appell......
-
Stoddard's Estate, In re
...that state. RCW 18.85.340 makes any violation of the real-estate brokers' act a gross misdemeanor. Both the original act (Salisbury v. Alskog, 144 Wash. 88, 256 P. 1030) and the present act (Johnson v. Rutherford, 32 Wash.2d 194, 200 P.2d 977) have been judicially determined to be penal in ......