White v. Erickson
| Decision Date | 29 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 20,939 |
| Citation | 169 N.W. 535,141 Minn. 141 |
| Parties | S. R. WHITE AND ANOTHER v. ANDREW ERICKSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,400 commissions upon an exchange of real property. Defendant specifically denied that plaintiffs or either of them procured customers to whom defendant sold and exchanged property; and alleged that if plaintiffs attempted to perform such services, they were not rendered for defendant or at his request, but were rendered for the persons who attempted to purchase defendant's property by exchange; that such services resulted in no binding agreement as such persons had a right to cancel and terminate, and did cancel and terminate, the same and so notified defendant, and no sale was ever made or binding contract entered into by virtue of any such attempted services or negotiations. The case was tried before Molyneaux, J., who granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Reversed.
Broker -- action for commission -- error to direct verdict.
In an action by real estate brokers to recover commissions on the exchange of real estate, it being conceded that there was no right of recovery if one of the parties to the contract of exchange breached the contract and refused to perform its terms, the question whether there was such a breach is held to have been a question of fact for the jury; and the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that as a matter of law there was such breach.
Brady Robertson & Bonner, for appellants.
John N Berg, for respondent.
Action by the plaintiffs, real estate brokers, to recover commissions on the exchange of real property. The court directed a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiffs appeal.
The defendant Erickson entered into a contract with Dietz and Warner by which he was to exchange North Dakota lands for an apartment building in Minneapolis. The controlling question is whether Dietz and Warner as a matter of law breached their contract.
The contract of exchange was dated January 13, 1917, and papers were to be passed January 20, 1917. Dietz and Warner were to have the opportunity of examining the lands, and if they were found to be not as represented or not as they understood them to be the contract was to be void.
The lands were subject to a $4,000 mortgage. Erickson was to pay Dietz and Warner $2,000 in cash upon the exchange.
After the contract was made Dietz and Warner sought to have Erickson clear the North Dakota lands of the mortgage or give them an additional $2,000. They wrote him as follows:
About the same time Evans, the agent of Dietz and Warner, had a conversation about the transaction. They do not agree upon what was said. Erickson claims that Evans told him that they had a report on his lands and would not close the deal unless he would pay $2,000 more in cash or clear the land of the mortgage; that he refused to accede to this; that the contract was then definitely renounced by Dietz and Warner and that he acquiesced and elected to treat the contract as at an end and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial