Tucker, Lynch & Coldwell, Inc. v. Hawley

California Court of Appeal Dec 10, 1913 No. Civ. No. 1303.Published

Before: Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to its real estate commission because it performed the services required under the contract, which did not necessitate the plaintiff being the procuring cause of the lease terms, but rather required only that the specified parties enter into a lease for the property.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff was required to be the procuring cause of the lease terms to earn its commission under the specific agreement.
Whether the defendant's use of a corporation to construct the building relieved him of his obligation to pay the commission.
Whether the term 'represented' in the contract included a company brought in by the agent to secure the lease.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the plaintiff was entitled to its commission whenever the Western Basket & Barrel Company, or any concern represented by Mackall, entered into a lease with the defendant for the property described.”

“The description of the building as “to be erected by the undersigned” (M. J. Hawley) was sufficiently answered by a building erected by a corporation which he was instrumental in forming for that purpose”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. George A. Sturtevant, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, in an action for services rendered as a real estate broker by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Defendant was the owner of a certain piece of real estate in San Francisco, which he desired to lease for warehouse purposes. On several occasions he had conversed with A. C. Hastings, an employee of the plaintiff, in regard to a tenant. In January, 1910, he again saw Hastings, showed him a working plan of a building he intended to erect, and told him that if he would bring him a tenant who desired a warehouse, he would pay the usual real estate commission. In response to an oral arrangement thereupon entered into, Hastings at once made efforts to find a tenant, and later Hastings in company with Colbert Coldwell, another employee of the plaintiff, saw the defendant in his office, and Coldwell told defendant that he thought that a tenant had been secured for the property, and asked to see the plans of the proposed warehouse so as to be able to discuss the matter with the prospective tenant. After spending some time in examining the plans it was seen that they were complicated, and the defendant suggested that the best thing to do was for Coldwell to bring the proposed tenant and the defendant together and let them discuss the matter. In this connection defendant further said, “Do this, and it will save going over the plans a number of times with you, and then by you with him, and I will protect you in your commisisons. ’ ’ Coldwell assented, and brought the defendant and B. F. Mackall together, the latter representing the Western Basket and Barrel Co. Thereupon, after some discussion as to the amount of plaintiff’s commission, the defendant signed the following document:

“San Francisco, Cal., Jan. 8th, 1910.

“For value received the undersigned agrees that if the Western Basket & Barrel Company, or any concern represented by B F. Mackall, leases the building to be erected by

[462]

the undersigned in the block bounded by First and Second streets and Bryant and Brannan streets, San Francisco, Cal., that he will pay to Tucker, Lynch & Coldwell Inc. the sum of fifteen hundred ($1,500) dollars for services rendered in making the said lease. Above covers the entire building, a smaller section will be pro-rated. ■

Tucker, Lynch & Coldwell, Inc. v. Hawley

AI Brief

Synopsis

KERRIGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief