Woodcock v. Dennis, 33.

• Citation: 199 A. 845
• Decision Date: 14 June 1938
• Docket Number: No. 33.,33.
• Parties: WOODCOCK v. DENNIS.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

199 A. 845

WOODCOCK

v. DENNIS. ^*

No. 33.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 14, 1938.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dorchester County; Benjamin A. Johnson, T. Sangston Insley, and James M. Crockett, Judges.

Action by Philip C. Dennis against S. Franklyn Woodcock to recover the difference between price of realty for which plaintiff's realty was allegedly sold and the real price for which defendant as realty broker had sold the realty. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C. J., and URNER, OFFUTT, SLOAN, MITCHELL, and SHEHAN, JJ.

Joseph Y. Gunby and William W. Travers, both of Salisbury (Woodcock, Webb, Bounds & Travers, of Salisbury, and Henry & Henry, of Cambridge, on the brief), for appellant. L. Paul Ewell, of Pocomoke City, and V. Calvin Trice, of Cambridge (William G. Kerbin, Jr., of Snow Hill, on the brief), for appellee.

SHEHAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dorchester County, in favor of Philip C. Dennis against S. Franklyn Woodcock, the appellant, who has for many years been engaged in the sale of real estate in various sections of the Eastern Shore. The appellee conducts a hotel at Berlin in Worcester County. In the early part of 1934 he purchased two farms in that County. The one known as the "Tingle" Farm and the other the "Jess Taylor" Farm. Both of these farms were placed in the hands of the appellant for sale. The Taylor farm was sold by Mr. Dennis himself and is not the subject of consideration in this case. We are here dealing with the sale of the Tingle Farm. Mr. Woodcock represented to Mr. Dennis that he was having much difficulty in interesting persons in the purchase of this farm and it would be necessary to widely advertise it, and for this reason, and others, Mr. Woodcock was given the exclusive right to sell this property and to receive 10% commissions on the price obtained.

There is much conflict in the testimony, but it is sufficient to say that there was evidence legally sufficient to enable the jury to find the state of facts now to be recited.

The price named by Mr. Dennis to his Agent, Woodcock, was either $3,000 or $3,500. Numerous conferences ensued between the parties mostly at the hotel in Berlin, Maryland, and on the 14th of November Mr. Woodcock telephoned the appellee that an offer of $3,000 for the farm had been received. Mr. Dennis urged Woodcock to endeavor to get an amount above that offer, sufficient to pay his commissions. The appellant then stated that he would call Mr. Dennis back, which he did, in about an hour, and said his client would not give more money and advised Dennis to accept the offer. Woodcock did not disclose the name of the purchaser at that time; but said he had hunted high and low for a buyer around New York and elsewhere, but he had sold the farm there in Salisbury. Dennis agreed to sell at the price named, because Woodcock told him "he could not do any better". In the afternoon of the same day, at the request of Woodcock, Dennis, together with his wife, went to Salisbury and executed a deed for the property to Mary E. Toadvin. This was on the 14th day of November, 1934. Woodcock had urged Dennis to hurry over to Salisbury to sign the deed, which had already been prepared by Woodcock, before his client changed her mind. After the deed had been executed Dennis left it with Woodcock with the understanding that settlement would be made in a few days at which time Woodcock should deliver it to the purchaser. About three days after this Woodcock sent a check to Dennis for $1,093.43, which was the balance of the $3,000, after paying a mortgage on the property to the Snow Hill Bank, taxes then due, and retaining 10%, or $300.00, commissions for himself. On December 12, 1934, this farm was conveyed by deed from Annie E. Toadvin to Dudley Butler and wife, strangers to Mr. Dennis.

In the following summer, Mr. Dennis discovered that Woodcock had sold this farm to Mr. Butler and wife for $6,500, and that this sale, in consequence of preceding negotiations, had been consummated on the very day (November 14, 1934) that Mr. Dennis and his wife had executed the deed to Mrs. Toadvin, and in spite of the above recited representations made by Mr. Woodcock, in hurriedly securing its execution. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Toadvin took no beneficial interest in the farm and acted only for Mr. Woodcock. The completion of the transaction between Woodcock and Butler is evidenced by a telegram from S. Franklyn Woodcock to Dudley Butler, dated November 14, 1934, as follows: "Have closed deal on farm for you need not bother your cousin to send money let me know where I can write you."

After Dennis discovered that Woodcock had sold the farm to Butler and wife under the circumstances above recited, he brought suit to recover the balance due of $6,500, the sales price obtained by Woodcock from Butler, after deducting the amount Woodcock had already paid to or for Dennis. The jury returned a verdict of $1,900 in favor of Dennis and from the judgment entered thereon, the defendant appealed. As above stated there is much conflict in the testimony by the parties to this suit. There is no denial, however, that the Tingle farm was placed in the hands of Mr. Woodcock for sale and that it was actually conveyed to Mrs. Toadvin for $3,000 and was settled for at that price and on the same day a sale was consummated by Woodcock to Butler for $6,500. Mr. Woodcock denies the details of this transaction between his client and Mrs. Toadvin and gives as a reason for the transfer to Mrs. Toadvin, the difficulties that he was then having with his wife. He also states that he had previously bought the farm from Mr. Dennis at a time when an offer from one Bridgeman for $6,500 had been declined by Mr. Dennis because of the unsatisfactory proposals for settlement at...