Smith v. Lawrence

• Citation: 98 Me. 92,56 A. 455
• Parties: SMITH v. LAWRENCE et al.
• Decision Date: 10 October 1903
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

56 A. 455

98 Me. 92

SMITH

v. LAWRENCE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Oct. 10, 1903.

(Official.)

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County.

Action by Harry L. Smith against Edward M. Lawrence and another. Assumpsit to recover $0,250 for services alleged by the plaintiff to have been rendered by him for the defendants in procuring a purchaser of real estate. Plea, general issue. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,750. Case reported.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, STROUT, SAVAGE, and SPEAR, JJ.

H. H. Gray, W. R. Pattangall, and H. L. Smith, for plaintiff.

J. H. Gray, G. M. Hanson, and A. St. Clair, for defendants.

EMERY, J. From the uncontradicted evidence and the evidence for the plaintiff, laying aside for the present the disputed evidence for the defendant, we think the following facts appear:

Prior to February 1, 1902, Daniel W. Smith, the plaintiff's father, was a copartner with Edward M. Lawrence and Elias P. Lawrence, the defendants, in a partnership owning and operating timber lands, lumber mills, etc., in Jonesboro, Washington county. Smith's interest was small, only about $1,250, while the interest of the Lawrences was about $34,000. On the date above named, February 1, 1902, the partnership being somewhat in debt, and the parties being desirous of closing up the partnership affairs, the Lawrences agreed with Smith in writing to convey to him or his assigns all their interest in the property and partnership for $34,000 and the payment of all the partnership debts, if so purchased before February 20, 1902. This agreement was subsequently extended to March 20, 1902.

Mr. Daniel W. Smith, under the above agreement, expended much labor and money in efforts to find a purchaser for the property. His son, Harry L. Smith, the plaintiff, also expended much labor and money in his father's behalf in the same effort. Among others whom they sought to interest in the matter was a Mr. Grimes, an experienced lumberman. Mr. Grimes tried to organize a syndicate, including some Rockland parties, to purchase the property, but never got them to the point of actually agreeing to purchase. Finally, on March 18, 1902, Mr. Daniel W. Smith abandoned all further efforts to find a purchaser, and so notified the Lawrences. It was then orally agreed that Daniel W. Smith should convey and assign his interest in the partnership to the Lawrences for $1,250, and a deed by him and a note by the Lawrences to that effect were executed, and deposited in escrow, and afterwards delivered. The Lawrences then orally agreed with Harry L. Smith, the plaintiff and the son of Daniel, that he might have till May 1, 1902, to find a purchaser for the property at $34,000, plus the $1,250 to be paid his father, and plus the debts of the partnership, $7,500, or $42,750 in all. Under this agreement Mr. Harry L. Smith and Mr. Grimes continued their efforts to find a purchaser. The price they were endeavoring to obtain for the property was $49,000, which would give the plaintiff a margin or profit of $6,250.

Mr. Grimes finally induced several men to consider the proposition to purchase with him at $49,000, among whom were Mr. Taylor, Mr. Oak, and Mr. Wing, the latter a Rhode Island capitalist of experience in timber lands and mills. He arranged for these men to go to Jonesboro with him to examine the property with reference to purchasing it. They arrived there, Mr. Wing with them, on April 4th. Mr. Wing made some examination of the property, but finally, on April 7, 1902, declined to purchase. This dissolved the syndicate, none of the other men being willing to purchase without Mr. Wing, and Mr. Grimes withdrew from the scheme, and so notified the plaintiff. No further efforts were made by the plaintiff to find a purchaser, and he allowed his option to lapse without further action.

Up to this point it is clear, and indeed conceded, that the plaintiff had not earned any commissions, and is not entitled to recover for any expenditure of time, labor, or money in his efforts to find a purchaser. A real estate broker undertaking to sell the real estate of another earns nothing until he produces to the owner a customer willing and prepared to purchase and pay for the property at the price and on the terms given by the owner to the broker. All his expenditure of labor and money are at his own risk, to be recouped only in case of success. Garcelon v. Tibbetts, 84 Me. 148, 24 Atl. 797, and cases cited.

But the plaintiff claims that bis failure to bring the proposed customer to the point of actual purchase at his price of $49,000 was caused by the interference of the defendants in offering to sell to his customers at a much less price, viz., $34,000, or in persuading Mr. Grimes to abandon the plaintiff and become a purchaser of part of the property on his own account at a less rate. The first question raised by this claim is whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain it in fact, if good in law. The following...