Taylor v. Barbour
Decision Date | 09 December 1907 |
Docket Number | 12837 |
Citation | 90 Miss. 888,44 So. 988 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | JOHN W. TAYLOR v. CHRISTOPHER C. BARBOUR ET AL |
FROM the circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.
Barbour and others, partners, doing business under the firm name Barbour & Company, appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below, and Taylor, the appellant, defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiffs' favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court.
The plaintiffs, Barbour & Company, instituted two different suits before a justice of the peace against appellant; one to recover $ 60 as commission for sale by plaintiffs, as brokers, of $ 24,000 of Corinth Waterworks bonds, the other to recover $ 125, as commission for sale by plaintiffs, as brokers, of $ 70,000 of Gulf Compress bonds. Judgments by default were rendered in the justice's court in the two cases against the defendant, Taylor, from which he appealed to the circuit court, where the two cases were consolidated.
The contract, the basis of the suits, is found in certain letters written by Taylor to Barbour & Company, which, omitting formal parts, are as follows:
The defendant offered no evidence. Under peremptory instruction the jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs' favor for $ 185, the total of the two demands against defendant, together with interest.
Case reversed and remanded.
J. M Boone, for appellant.
The sole issue here is, whether the contract sued on was unilateral and supported by no consideration moving from appellees to appellant. The case is controlled by Kolb v Land Company, 74 Miss. 568. It will be seen that Barbour & Company, the appellees, admitted that they did not sell the bonds or the notes; and there was no evidence showing that they assisted in any way in effecting the real sale of the bonds or the notes. They based their right to recover, upon the statement of appellant that he would pay them their commission whether they sold the bonds and notes or not. Appellees paid no consideration, entered into no correlative obligation, and, if they had taken no steps whatever in executing the purposes of agency, they would have incurred no liability to appellant; and appellant could not have sued them for nonperformance of the contract. Appellees did not present any purchaser, ready and willing to buy. The circumstances here are practically the same as in the case of Kolb v. Land Company, supra. See also Stensguard v Smith, 43 Minn. 11, 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.), 967; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 38 A. 441.
The court below seemed to be impressed with the idea that the appellant was liable to appellees because he promised to pay the commissions whether the appellees effected the sale of the bonds and notes or not. But such promise was clearly without any consideration, and no authority can be found to authorize its enforcement. Lawson on Contracts, sec. 100; Hendricks v. Robertson, 56 Miss. 699.
The lower court permitted recovery on the express contract of appellant to pay appellees, whether appellees sold the bonds and notes or not. Recovery was not permitted on quantum meruit, nor on a claim for expenses incurred, but, as stated, on express contract, the court holding that appellees should be allowed to recover for services not rendered, by reason of the fact that appellant had promised appellees that he would pay them commissions whether they sold the bonds or not.
We call the court's attention to the fact that appellant according to the testimony of appellees, never...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Daniel v. Hodge
... ... the strength of the agreement ... Kolb v ... Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss. 567, 21 So. 233; Jayne v ... Drake, 41 So. 372; Taylor v. Barbour, 90 Miss ... 888, 44 So. 988, 122 A. S. R. 328; Swain v. Pitts, ... 120 Miss. 578, 82 So. 305; Tonkel v. Moore, 162 Miss. 83, 137 ... ...
-
Taylor v. Kramer Service, Inc.
... ... Shaffer (Ala.), 59 So. 286 ... Where ... one lists his property with a broker and the sale or lease is ... consummated with the broker's prospect he is entitled to ... his commission ... Sunflower ... Bank v. Pitts, 66 So. 810, 108 Miss. 380; Taylor ... v. Barbour, 44 So. 988, 90 Miss. 888; Ferguson v. Quick, ... 78 So. 618, 117 Miss. 692 ... The law ... will not permit one broker who has been entrusted with a sale ... and is working with the customer to be deprived of his ... commission by another agent stepping in and selling the land ... ...
-
Swain v. Pitts
... ... Manson, 61 So. 835; Hauch v ... Bonnabel, 64 So. 795; Lewis v. Manson, 11 So ... 835; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 978-979; Taylor v ... Martin, 33 So. 112; Taylor v. Jay, 43 So. 993, ... Citing other cases; Wooley v. Bachellor, 169 P. 408; ... Pryor v. Jolly, 91 Tex ... ...
-
Cook v. Smith
...acts are performed the consideration arises, and the promise to convey then becomes irrevocable." Bank v. Pitts, 66 So. 810; Taylor v. Barbour, 90 Miss. 888. pointed out in the beginning of the brief, it is not a question as to whether Leeton could hold Cook to the contract made with Smith ......