Staehlin v. Kramer

• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Citation: 94 S.W. 785,118 Mo. App. 329
• Parties: STAEHLIN v. KRAMER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

94 S.W. 785

118 Mo. App. 329

STAEHLIN v. KRAMER.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 24, 1906.

1. BROKERS—SUFFICIENCY OF SERVICES.

Where the owner of property more than a year before its sale authorized plaintiff to find a purchaser and was aware that plaintiff was making continued efforts to procure one, and did not revoke plaintiff's authority, pursuant to which plaintiff made the purchaser acquainted with the property and the terms, and introduced him to the owner and in consequence thereof the purchaser was induced to buy, plaintiff was entitled to recover his commissions, though the property sold at a less price than plaintiff was authorized to sell for, and though it was sold by the owner herself or through another agent.

2. SAME—ACTION FOR COMPENSATION—BURDEN OF PROOF.

In an action by a broker to recover commissions, the burden is on him to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was employed to sell the property, and pursuant thereto performed the service.

3. SAME—TERMINATION OF AGENCY.

Where, at the time a broker was employed to sell real estate, no period was agreed on during which the agency should continue, it continued for a reasonable time after the employment, in view of all the circumstances.

4. SAME.

Where the owner of property employed plaintiff to sell it and after a month or two it was agreed that plaintiff's authority should cease, and three or four years after the employment the property was sold, and plaintiff had no negotiations with the purchaser for two years prior to the sale, plaintiff was not entitled to recover commissions, although he had introduced the purchaser to defendant and called the purchaser's attention to the property.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel G. Taylor, Judge.

Action by Charles Staehlin against Kate Kramer. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Peers & Peers, for appellant. Montague Punch, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This action was instituted to recover a commission alleged to be due appellant from respondent for the sale of a parcel of real estate. The defense is that appellant did not effect the sale. Respondent was a widow living on Dickson street in St. Louis but, as we understand conducting a barber shop at No. 2025 Market street, which was the property sold. It was bought in October, 1904, by Maurice Lipschitz. Staehlin, who was a real estate agent, asserts that he found the purchaser, directed his attention to the property and made him acquainted with respondent. Staehlin swore substantially as follows: A year or more before the sale respondent asked him if he could sell her property, saying her price was $7,500. Knowing Lipschitz was wanting to buy some property on Market street, appellant called his attention to respondent's premises, and in July, 1904, took him to her home and introduced him. Mrs. Kramer raised her price to $9,500, which Lipschitz refused to pay. After a negotiation extending over several weeks, Mrs. Kramer finally agreed to sell for $8,250, which Lipschitz paid, and the property was conveyed to him. Appellant's testimony was corroborated by that of his daughter. Mrs. Kramer testified that about four years prior to the sale, while she was in front of her home one day, Staehlin passed and asked if she would sell her Market street property. She said she would if she could get her price, which was $7,500; Staehlin told her he could sell it in two weeks, and would ask 3 per cent. commission, and she told him it would be all right. She heard nothing from Staehlin until about two years before the sale occurred, when he came again to her home on Dickson street, introduced his daughter, and asked if respondent had yet sold her property. She told him she had not, and did not want to sell because her oldest son had married, was doing well, and she wanted to live on the property with her daughter. Staehlin saw her once after that and said that he could not get a buyer and she said all right, she was not anxious to sell. She swore that she never saw Staehlin again until after the property was sold. She admitted that Staehlin brought Lipschitz to her house several years before the sale, but nothing resulted from that visit, and she never saw Lipschitz again until Mr. Hoig, the agent, who actually sold the property brought him to her on August 30, 1904. Respondent paid...