Yoder v. Randol
| Decision Date | 08 September 1905 |
| Citation | 83 P. 537,16 Okla. 308,1905 OK 128 |
| Parties | YODER v. RANDOL et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a petition properly alleges a contract of employment in relation to the sale of real estate, and avers facts showing a full performance of the broker's duty to his employer and the accomplishment of all he undertook to do under his contract, held, a sufficient pleading, as against demurrer, of a cause of action for compensation for such services.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 8, Cent. Dig. Brokers, § 101.]
As a general rule, the entire duty of a broker employed to assist in the sale of property is to find and introduce or report to his employer a person who is willing and able to purchase at the price and upon the terms which the employer has designated, although this rule is to be applied as abridged or extended in any specific case by the terms of the contract of employment.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 8, Cent. Dig. Brokers, § 75.]
Where the essential averments of a petition in an action for commission earned as real estate brokers are the contract of employment and a full compliance with the terms thereof, and the answer, after a general denial, definitely recognizes the procurement of a purchaser by the plaintiffs for the land in question and an acceptance of the purchaser by the landowner and discloses further the execution of a binding, valid, and enforceable contract of sale between the two, and an agreement to compensate the brokers in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale, held, that in such case a motion by plaintiffs for judgment on the pleadings was properly sustained, and the trial court committed no error in rendering judgment for plaintiffs thereon.
Where a broker has fully performed his undertaking by producing a person ready, willing, and able to purchase his employer's property at the price and upon the terms stipulated, and the landowner has accepted the purchaser so procured and entered into a binding and enforceable contract with him, the broker is entitled to his commission, and his right thereto is not defeated by the fact that the purchaser refuses to consummate the transaction because of a defect in the landowner's title to the property, where knowledge of such defect was not communicated by the employer to the broker at the time of entering into the contract of employment with him.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 8, Cent. Dig. Brokers, §§ 78, 92, 93.]
Error from District Court, Custer County; before Justice C. F. Irwin.
Action by W. A. Randol and E. R. Nix against Moses T. Yoder. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Harkins and Jones, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. T. Webster, for defendants in error.
This was an action brought by defendants in error for commission on the sale of certain real estate under a contract of employment with plaintiff in error. Defendant below demurred to the amended petition, which was overruled. He thereafter filed a general denial, verified, coupled with certain allegations and admissions, to which plaintiffs replied, and filed their motion for judgment on the pleadings. This motion was sustained, and judgment rendered for defendants in error, and plaintiff in error brings the case here for review. The action of the trial court in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff in error to the amended petition, and in sustaining the motion for judgment upon the pleadings and rendering judgment thereon, are the errors to which our attention is directed.
As to the first ground relied upon, it may be stated as a general rule, the entire duty, and also, the limit of authority, of a broker employed to assist in the sale of property, is to find and introduce or report to his employer a person who is willing and able to purchase the property at the price and upon the terms which the employer has designated. 23 A. & E Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) 900. And, in any specific case, the general rule is, of course, abridged or extended in accordance with the particular contract of employment, and to such contract, in controversies as to right to compensation, reference must be had for guidance in determining whether or not the broker has performed his full duty towards his employer, and accomplished all he undertook to do. Millan v. Porter, 31 Mo.App. 563; Maze v. Gordon, 96 Cal. 61, 30 P. 962. To plead properly, therefore, such a cause of action, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to incorporate in his petition the requisite allegations of employment, followed by sufficient averments of a compliance with that contract on his part to show he has accomplished the whole of what was entailed upon him thereby. In the case at bar, to apply these general rules thereto, the amended petition alleges that the defendants in error were "to find for said defendant a purchaser" for the land concerned, "at the agreed price of $2,750; this sum to be net to the said defendant," and that plaintiffs were to receive as their compensation for "such services, a commission, which defendant agreed to pay, equal to the difference between the net price of $2,750 thus set by the said defendant and the contract price agreed to by the proposed purchaser." This, of course, constitutes the contract of employment, specifies the amount of compensation, and defines the conditions upon the full accomplishment and pleading of which depended the right of plaintiffs below to maintain their action. To meet, then, the requirements of a compliance with their contract, plaintiffs alleged, in the language of their amended petition, that they "immediately began to search and labor for a purchaser, and finally, on August 15, 1903, they introduced to said defendant *** one H. J. Vandenburg as a purchaser for said land, at the agreed price of $3,000, and said defendant being satisfied with said purchaser, then and there *** entered into a written contract with said H. J. Vandenburg...
To continue reading
Request your trial