Taylor v. Unger
Decision Date | 20 October 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 6429,6429 |
Citation | 330 P.2d 965,1958 NMSC 120,65 N.M. 3 |
Parties | Elden V. TAYLOR, d/b/a Elden Taylor, Realtor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Orlando R. UNGER and Nell R. Unger, his wife, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Paul E. Keefe, Albuquerque, for appellant.
Julian S. Ertz, Albuquerque, for appellees.
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from an order dismissing his complaint in which he seeks to recover broker's commission for services rendered appellees.
The decisive question is whether the action is barred by reason of the provision of Section 70-1-43, New Mexico Statutes Annotated, which reads:
On August 9, 1954, the parties entered into a written agreement whereby appellant was given exclusive authority for a period of six months to sell Forrest Park Ranch for appellees for a price of $48,000, with a minimum down payment of $15,000 and balance on monthly payments. The agreement further provides:
'We further agree to pay said agent five percent of the selling pricke so accepted, and New Mexico State Sales Tax, on any sale consummated with any party he may have shown said property or negotiated with during term stated, or may be consummated with said party by any person or persons, within ninety (90) days after termination of this contract.'
Timely, on February 5, 1955, appellant found a purchaser, Alan Pope, who made an offer of $46,000 for the property, with a down payment of $5,000, balance payable $300 monthly with interest. The offer was communicated to appellees and the price was acceptable; however, appellees suggested a down payment of $7,000 since they had planned to purchase a new automobile if they made the sale. Pope had previously advised appellant that he would make a cash payment of $7,000 or more if necessary. This fact was also communicated to appellees at the time, and the offer was then acceptable in all respects. Appellees then called their attorney and made an appointment with him for the 8th day of February, 1955, at which time the necessary papers were to be drawn in closing the deal. At the time stated, both appellees and the appellant went to the attorney's office pursuant to the appointment. The deal was explained to the attorney, after which appellees directed him to draw a binder providing for a total sales price of $46,000 $7,000 cash and the balance at the rate of $300 per month, with interest on deferred payments. Appellant was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maine v. Garvin
...cases cited by defendant can be considered as authority to support the rule. On the other hand, we note our decision in Taylor v. Unger, 65 N.M. 3, 330 P.2d 965, from which we quote the following which would appear to clearly align this court in support of a rule contra to McFadden v. Pyne,......
- Douglass v. State, Regulation and Licensing Dept.
- State ex rel. Miller v. Tackett
-
Yrisarri v. Wallis
...N.M.S.A. 1953, to show an agreement different from the initial written agreement. This issue was raised, but not decided, in Taylor v. Unger, 65 N.M. 3, 330 P.2d 965. The following cases dealt with attempted modification of written agreements for sale of real estate on the basis of subseque......