Scott v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 15 March 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 419
• Parties: SCOTT <I>v.</I> PATTERSON <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 419

SCOTTv.

PATTERSON et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 15, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Sebastian county; GEORGE A. GRACE, Special Judge.

F. A. Youmans, for appellant. B. H. Tabor, for appellees.

HUGHES, J.

Appellant employed appellees, as real-estate agents, to sell for him a tract of land; gave them the numbers of the land, the price and terms, which were $10 per acre, one-third cash, and the balance, in equal payments, in one and two years. Scott, the appellant, and owner of the land, was introduced by the appellees to Mrs. Humphries, the prospective purchaser, and negotiations were pending between her and Scott for about a week without any agreement. Afterwards they met at the office of appellees for the purpose of determining the matter. They failed to agree, and appellant informed Mrs. Humphries that he considered the trade off. Afterwards, Scott contracted to sell the land to Vaughan & Hatchett, and sent a deed to be signed and acknowledged by his wife. Upon the return of the deed, Vaughan & Hatchett made objections to the title, and declined to consummate their agreement to purchase. Pending their consideration whether they would accept the deed, Scott met Mrs. Humphries, and informed her that he had sold the land. She expressed regret that she had not purchased it, whereupon Scott told her that if Vaughan & Hatchett did not take it he would give her the preference. Soon afterwards, Scott sold her the land for all cash; and he and Mrs. Humphries went to the office of appellees, and procured them to prepare the deed. After the deed was prepared and delivered, and the consideration had been paid, appellees demanded commissions for the sale. Scott refused to pay commissions, offering to pay for preparing the deed, and appellees brought this suit.

The appellant, in his testimony, after stating other facts, said: "Mr. Parker said, in my presence, that he had done all he could to sell her the land, [meaning Mrs. Humphries,] and that he was unable to do so, and that he would turn her over to me; that I might sell her the land, if I could. We met at the office of Patterson & Parker according to agreement. She would not close with me, and I considered the trade off. Patterson & Parker were present while Mrs. Humphries and I were talking about the matter. After this, I contracted to sell the land to John Vaughan." And in the cross-examination appellant said: "I did not have anything to do with selling the property until after Patterson & Parker had declined to have anything more to do with the property." Appellees testified, in substance, that they had no information that negotiations were broken off between Scott and Mrs. Humphries after they had failed to agree at their office; that there was merely a lull in the trade; that Scott never took the property off their books, and never revoked their authority to sell; that they had no knowledge of the attempted trade with Vaughan & Hatchett.

The court, sitting as a jury, found...