Vaughan v. Pleasonton

• Decision Date: 08 June 1911
• Citation: 112 Va. 508,71 S.E. 529
• Parties: VAUGHAN. v. PLEASONTON et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

112 Va. 508

71 S.E. 529

VAUGHAN.

v.PLEASONTON et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 8, 1911.

1. Brokers (§ 63^*)—Compensation — Right to—Refusal of Principal.

A real estate broker must complete the sale, with a purchaser able, ready, and willing to complete the purchase upon the terms agreed upon, before he is entitled to his commissions; and when he has found such a purchaser, who has entered into a valid contract, his right to compensation cannot be defeated by the seller's misrepresentation, or by his unreasonable refusal to comply with his contract.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. §§ 94-96; Dec. Dig. § 63.*]

2. Brokers (§ 64*) — Compensation — Services—Completion of Sale.

Where a broker employéd to sell land found a purchaser on the required conditions, but when the parties met to make the sale the purchaser refused to enter into the contract agreed on, but insisted on one materially different and less advantageous to the vendor, which the vendor refused, the broker was not entitled to commissions.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 97; Dec. Dig. § 64.*]

Error to Circuit Court, Goochland County.

Action by R. F. Vaughan against Alfred Pleasonton and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Rosewell Page, John Rutherford, C. R. Sands, and D. H. & Walter Leake, for plaintiff in error.

Smith, Moncure & Gordon, for defendants in error.

HARRISON, J. This action was brought by R. F. Vaughan, a real estate agent, to recover of Alfred and Theresa Pleasonton $2,000 commissions, alleged to be due the plaintiff on a sale alleged to have been made by him for the defendants of their landed estate in Goochland county, at the price of $40,000.

There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants, to which this writ of error was awarded.

The essential facts in the case are few and undisputed. It appears that on March 10, 1909, the defendants united in the following letter to the plaintiff: "You are hereby authorized to sell our farms, composed of Boiling Hall, Woodville, and Pocahontas, in Goochland county, Virginia, and containing about 2, 000 acres, more or less, for the sum of $50,000, and we agree to pay you 5 per cent. commission on said price, or on whatever price we accept from your customer, said commissions to be paid out of the first cash payment, if sold through your agency."

In pursuance of this authority the plaintiff, in the following May, submitted to the defendants an offer of $40,000 for the property, made by Thomas S. Winston, which they agreed to accept, upon certain terms and conditions. In pursuance of this understanding a contract was then prepared between all the parties, including the proposed purchaser, by the plaintiff, Vaughan, the agent, which, "although not signed, was according to the testimony of all sides satisfactory to the Pleasontons and to Winston; the significance of this paper being that it embodied the terms upon which all parties were willing to meet." This statement with respect to the Vaughan contract is taken from the petition for the writ of error, and is fully sustained by the evidence. This contract set forth the property sold, which the parties of the first part covenanted to convey by a good and sufficient deed, and provided that the purchaser should assume a mortgage on the property of $15,000 and pay the balance of $25,000 in cash; these terms to be complied with as soon as the attorney for the purchaser should procure allnecessary papers and releases of deeds and suits from the circuit court of Goochland county, affecting the title to said lands. The purchaser agreed to comply with these terms and to pay $1,000 in cash, the receipt of which was acknowledged in the contract, to bind the sale, which sum was to be refunded if the title to the property was not good.

At the time this contract was prepared, May 31, 1909, it was understood that all parties should meet in Richmond on the 9th day of the ensuing June and complete the sale by carrying out its terms. In accordance with this understanding, the parties, except the purchaser, met in Richmond. The purchaser, who was absent on other business, designated his attorney, who was present to act for him in carrying into final completion the terms of purchase agreed upon. When the parties met, the attorney for the purchaser presented a contract, prepared by him, for the parties to execute, which was radically different in its terms from the Vaughan contract of May 31st, which all had agreed to. There was pending in the circuit court of Goochland county against the Pleasontons a creditors' suit, in which there had been no decree for sale, and the new contract provided that the sale should be ratified by the court, that a special commissioner should be appointed to unite with the proposed vendors in a deed to...