Trentman Co. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 27 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | 31429 |
| Citation | 147 So. 14,176 La. 854 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | TRENTMAN CO. et al. v. BROWN |
Original Opinion of July 20, 1932, Reported at: 176 La. 854.
OPINION On Rehearing.
On original hearing we held that the provision in section 2, Act No. 236 of 1920, which provides that said act "shall not apply to any person, firm, partnership, association, copartnership or corporation, * * * holding a duly executed power of attorney from the owner for the sale, leasing or rental of real estate," has reference only to those persons, firms, etc., who are not otherwise engaged in the real estate business, and who act as the "'alter ego' of an owner in an isolated transaction."
In the brief filed in support of their application for rehearing, counsel for plaintiff say that while they do not concede that the court's holding on the constitutional question raised is correct, yet they do not care to reargue the case on that point. On this branch of the case we have nothing to say further than that we think our holding is correct and we adhere to it.
The point stressed in the application for rehearing, and now relied upon principally by plaintiffs, is that plaintiff held a power of attorney from the owner, and counsel say in their brief, "Under the plain language of the act, therefore appellants were not required to be licensed under its provisions." We granted a rehearing in order that we might consider this point further.
After a most careful consideration of the language of the act, construing all of its provisions together, and keeping in mind its evident purposes, our final conclusion is, and we hold, that even though plaintiffs did hold a "power of attorney" from the owner of the lots they are not exempt from the provisions of the act under the circumstances here disclosed. To hold otherwise would destroy the act, as we shall presently show.
The plaintiff concern has its domicile in Texas and, at the time these transactions took place, had an office in Shreveport, La. At the time its contract with Roberts, which was in writing, was entered into and for many years prior thereto, it was engaged in the business of selling real estate and made a specialty of handling subdivisions. It classed itself as a "Realtor" and was a member of the "National Real Estate Board." Just where it carried on its activities prior to coming to this state is not disclosed, but presumably in Texas, where it had its domicile, and there is no testimony that it handled any real estate here other than the subdivision owned by Roberts, which consisted of 405 lots. Mr. H. C. Trentman, a member of the plaintiff firm, testified that after entering into the contract with Roberts, his company sold all the lots of the subdivision and that to do so they "put on" what he referred to as "campaigns," which, as shown by the record, were extensively advertised in circulars printed and distributed at plaintiffs' expense. Plaintiffs' duty under the contract was to find purchasers for the lots and to have them enter into contracts of sale as per the stipulations and terms made by the owner. The sales contracts obtained by plaintiff from prospective purchasers provided that the price of lots should be paid in installments, and that in case the purchaser failed to pay all installments, the contract was at an end and another purchaser was to be found for the lot. In case the purchaser found by plaintiff paid all installments, then a deed conveying full title was to be executed by the owner in person. Plaintiffs were to and did receive compensation for their services, the nature and amount of which being immaterial. Section 2, Act No. 236 of 1920 defines the term "real estate broker" as follows:
"That a real estate broker within the meaning of this Act is any person, firm, partnership, association, co-partnership or corporation, who for a compensation or valuable consideration sells or offers for sale, buys or offers to buy, or negotiate the purchase or sale or exchange of real estate, or who leases or offers to lease or rents or offers for rent, any real estate or the improvements thereon for others, as a whole or partial vocation." (Italics ours.)
A "real estate salesman," as defined by the act, is one who is employed by a licensed "real estate broker" to sell or offer for sale real estate belonging to another.
Plaintiffs, when they came to this state, entered into a written contract with the owner of a subdivision, consisting of 405 lots, under which they were authorized to and did, for a compensation or valuable consideration, offer for sale and sell real estate. They maintained an office and were engaged in that business for more than eighteen months. They were therefore "real estate brokers," as defined by the act.
But plaintiffs say they...
To continue reading
Request your trial