Terry v. Bishop
Decision Date | 15 June 1922 |
Citation | 112 S.E. 619 |
Parties | TERRY . v. BISHOP et al. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Halifax County.
Action by F. W. Bishop and J. D. Fry, partners trading as the Bishop-Fry Company, and others, against E. M. Terry. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Reversed, and final judgment entered.
This is an action of trespass on the case in assumpsit brought by the defendants in error (who will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, or by their individual names), realestate agents, against the plaintiff in error (who will be hereinafter referred to as defendant, or by his individual name), to recover certain commissions claimed by the plaintiffs as owing to them by the defendant on a perfected sale of real estate in accordance with the agreement between the parties.
There was a verdict for the defendant Terry, which the court below set aside. Thereupon the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant brings error.
The declaration contains; the common counts in assumpsit and also three special counts declaring upon the alleged special contract in writing relied on by the plaintiffs.
The special contract in writing is as follows:
The plaintiffs succeeded in making an executory contract of sale of the land to one S. W. Minor within the 15 days specified in the said special contract, which was evidenced by the following writing:
It will be observed that this writing contains no provision fixing the day for completing the contract of sale.
Minor testified before the jury to the effect that, when he signed the writing just mentioned, he had an understanding with and expected the Atlantic Coast Realty Company to finance the transaction, and that he was to have a third and that company two-thirds of any profits, that he turned the matter over to that company as soon as said writing was executed, and the company had the title examined and found certain clouds on it, which the plaintiffs the real estate agents, however, claimed constituted no real defect in the title, but that the realty company declined to put up any purchase money until the clouds were removed, and that, by mutual consent of the real estate agents, Minor, and the realty company, the time for the completion of the contract of sale was postponed pending the ascertainment of what could or would be done about removing the clouds from the title, no definite time for the completion being named. There was other testimony to the same effect. The testimony for the defendant, Terry, was to the effect, however, that he had no communication with Minor or with the realty company direct, but solely through the plaintiff Bishop. And Terry testified that the writing signed by Minor and the plaintiff real estate agents was never delivered to him, nor any copy of it, and that he at no time accepted that contract of sale as the performance on the part of the plaintiffs of the special contract with him aforesaid.
On the contrary, the testimony of the defendant, Terry, before the jury was express that, as the plaintiff Bishop reported the matter to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dowler v. Suburban Improvement Co.
...Va. 116, 104 S. E. 279; Murray v. Rickard, 103 Va. 132, 48 S. E. 871; Crockett v. Grayson, 98 Va. 354, 36 S. E. 477; Terry v. Bishop Fry Co., 133 Va. 332, 112 S. E. 619; Massie v. Firmstone, 134 Va. 450, 114 S. E. 652; Pfanz v. Humburg, 82 Ohio St. 1, 91 N. E. 863, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 533, ......
-
Dowler v. Suburban Improvement Co.
...87 W.Va. 116, 104 S.E. 279; Murray v. Rickard, 103 Va. 132, 48 S.E. 871; Crockett v. Grayson, 98 Va. 354, 36 S.E. 477; Terry v. Bishop-Fry Co., 133 Va. 332, 112 S.E. 619; Massie v. Firmstone, 134 Va. 450, 114 S.E. Pfanz v. Humburg, 82 Ohio St. 1, 91 N.E. 863, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 533, and no......
-
Hensley v. Moretz, 4433
...jurisdiction and elsewhere. Crockett v. Grayson, 98 Va. 354, 36 S.E. 477; Murray v. Rickard, 103 Va. 132, 48 S.E. 871; Terry v. Bishop-Fry Co., 133 Va. 332, 112 S.E. 619; Massie v. Firmstone, 134 Va. 450, 114 S.E. 652; Leicht-Benson Corp. v. Stone & Co., 138 Va. 511, 514, 121 S.E. 883, 43 A......
-
Kuga v. Chang
...and finding no error in the court below, we will affirm the judgment in her favor. Affirmed. * Our decision in Terry v. Bishop-Fry Co., 133 Va. 332, 112 S.E. 619 (1922), upon which the Kugas principally rely, construed and applied a special contract and is inapposite to the issue ...