Smith v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 11 March 1889
• Citation: 2 Idaho 537,21 P. 412
• Parties: SMITH v. ANDERSON ET AL
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

21 P. 412

2 Idaho 537

SMITH v. ANDERSON ET AL

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 11, 1889

COMMISSIONS OF BROKER.-Where a party employs a real estate broker to sell a piece of real property at a stipulated price, at an agreed commission, and the broker finds a purchaser and introduces him to his employer, and afterward the employer sells the property to said purchaser at a less price and refuses to pay the broker his commission, held, the broker is entitled to his commission of ten per cent.

APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County.

Affirmed.

J. T Morgan, for Appellants.

The plaintiff has no cause of action unless the evidence show that he brought to defendant a purchaser able and willing to pay for the ranch the stipulated price. (McArthur v Slauson, 53 Wis. 41, 9 N.W. 784; Cassady v Seeley, 69 Iowa 509, 29 N.W. 432; Bradford v. Menard, 35 Minn. 197, 28 N.W. 248; Duclos v. Cunningham, 102 N.Y. 678, 6 N.E. 790; McClave v. Paine, 49 N.Y. 562, 10 Am. Rep. 431; Wylie v. Bank, 61 N.Y. 415; Brown v. Pforr, 38 Cal. 552, 553; McGavock v. Woodlief, 20 How. 221; Dolan v. Scanlan, 57 Cal. 261.)

Smith & Smith, for Respondent.

No objection to the instructions can be considered, as no objection to them was made on the trial, and no objections reversed. (Black v. City of Lewiston, ante, p. 276, 13 P. 80; Burton v. Ferry Co., 114 U.S. 474, 5 S.Ct. 960; Connecticut Mut, Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U.S. 250, 5 S.Ct. 119.)

LOGAN J. Weir, C. J., and Berry, J., concurring.

OPINION

LOGAN, J.

The plaintiff in this action alleges that in the month of August 1886, the plaintiff, being engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate upon commission, was employed by the defendants to find for them a purchaser for a certain ranch, known as the "Booth Ranch," then the property of the defendants; that in case the plaintiff found a purchaser the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff ten per cent upon the price for which said ranch should be sold; that plaintiff did find a purchaser for the ranch, and brought him to the defendants; and that thereafter the defendants sold the said ranch to such purchaser for the sum of $ 6,000. The complaint contains a second cause of action, substantially the same as the first, except that the plaintiff claimed the right to recover upon a quantum meruit. The answer is substantially a general denial. Upon the issues raised the cause duly came to trial, and the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages in the sum of $ 600. The evidence given at the trial was very brief, and upon the part of the plaintiff it was to the effect that he was employed by the defendants in the month of August, 1886, to find a purchaser for the Booth ranch, at the sum of not less than $ 8,000; that during the month of November, 1886, he had a conversation with one E. A. Potter in regard to the purchase of said ranch, and that thereupon he took said Potter to the defendants, and introduced him to them; that he had been for some time negotiating the trade with said Potter while the ranch was owned by and in the possession of Booth; that Potter subsequently came to the plaintiff, and told him that he could buy the property from the Andersons, the then owners of the property, and employers of the plaintiff, for a less sum than he was offered the property by the plaintiff. It further appears that the plaintiff advertised the property for sale in certain newspapers, at his own expense, and that in January, 1887, he presented the advertisement to the defendants, and called their attention to it; that afterward, some time in May, 1887, defendants sold the ranch to said Potter for $ 6,000, and received the money; that prior thereto, in the month of March, 1887, said defendants notified the plaintiff that he was not to act any further as agent to procure a purchaser for said ranch, and discharged said plaintiff from said employment, and said they did not desire to sell the ranch; that the plaintiff never did anything with reference to the sale after March, 1887, nor before, except as before testified; and that ten per cent on the purchase price was...