Ellison v. Sudduth Realty Co., 116 So. 331 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927). · Go Syfert
Search
Ellison v. Sudduth Realty Co., 116 So. 331 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ELLISON Et Al.
v.
SUDDUTH REALTY CO.
6 Div. 203..
Alabama Court of Appeals.
Nov 22, 1927.
Published opinion
116 So. 331
1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 190
Beddow Ray, of Birmingham, for appellants. Where parties intend that an oral agreement is to be reduced to writing, the transaction remains invalid until the writing is executed. Houston v. Faul, 86 Ala. 232 , 5 So. 433 ; Bissinger v. Prince, 117 Ala. 480 , 23 So. 67 . A person may list his real property with as many brokers for sale as he deems fit, but it is the broker who first produces a buyer that is ready, able, and willing to purchase on the terms of the seller that becomes entitled to the commission. Freedman v. Havemeyer, 37 App. Div. 518 , 56 N.Y. S. 97 ; Paige v. Powers, 215 App. Div. 721 , 212 N.Y. S. 435 ; Vreeland v. Vetterlein, 33 N.J. Law, 247 . Black Fort and Wilkinson Burton, all of Birmingham, for appellee. The broker is entitled to his commission when he produces to his principal a purchaser who is able, ready, and willing to buy on the terms presented by such principal, within the period allowed, or, if the time is not limited, before revocation of the agency. Handley v. Shaffer, 177 Ala. 636 , 59 So. 286 ; Dancy v. Baker, 206 Ala. 236 , 89 So. 590 ; Allen v. Farmer, 21 Ala. App. 524 , 109 So. 555 ; Birmingham Land L. Co. v. Thompson, 86 Ala. 146 , 5 So. 473 ; Henderson v. Vincent, 84 Ala. 99 , 4 So. 180 . Whenever the facts in evidence, proving or disproving the issues in the case, are in dispute, the case is properly submitted to the jury. Allen v. Farmer, 21 Ala. App. 524 , 109 So. 555 .
Rige.
Published
RIGE, J.

This was a suit by appellee against appellants, in which it recovered judgment in the court below for an amount claimed by it as its commission for the sale of certain real estate. The statement made by the reporter sufficiently shows the relation of the parties. We see no need for any extended discussion by us. Most of the facts are undisputed.

It appears that appellee, a real estate broker, had listed with it, for sale, the real estate in question. It appears further that it found and produced a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy the property at the price and upon the -terms which it submitted to him. If it had a binding agreement with appellants, the owners of the property, authorizing it to sell the property at this price and upon these terms, then it was entitled to recover its commission, even though the sale, by fault of the seller, was never consummated. Handley v. Shaffer, 177 Ala. 636, 59 So. 286.

The big dispute in the case, and the one upon which it turned, was as to whether or not appellee had such an agreement with appellants. Without, as we said, any extended discussion; we state our conclusion that this disputed question of fact was by the ■ trial court submitted to the jury under fair and correct legal instructions. The contract, it is true, was never signed by appellants, but it was not such a contract as was required to be in writing, and we do not find in the evidence anything from which it can be sai'd, as a matter of law, that it was never intended to be binding unless reduced to writing. It follows that the holding in Bissinger v. Prince & Blackman, 117 Ala. 480, 23 So. 67, is without application here.

As we read the record, the testimony of the witness, Anderson, as to both appellants agreeing to the terms of sale, etc., and instructing appellee to proceed with its efforts to[*296] sen the property, made the question of whether or not appellee had a binding agreement with appellants one for the jury’s decision. There was then, of course, no error in refusing to give at appellants’ request the general affirmative charge in their favor.

As stated, the above disposes of the main question raised in the court below and argued here.

The other questions are of but slight importance and do not seem to merit specific mention by us. In none of the rulings underlying same do we find prejudicial error. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.