Maloof v. Davis

BURNETT, J.

The action was for compensation for securing a purchaser of real estate belonging to defendants. The written contract, executed by the .parties, upon which the action was brought, as far as necessary to quote was in the following language: “I hereby authorize A. Maloof, as my agent, for a term of-days from this date, and hereafter until notified by me in writing that the same is withdrawn .(this is not exclusive), to offer for sale and sell for me for the sum of $35,000, my real property [describing it]. And I further agree that if my said agent shall procure a buyer for said property, or if a sale or exchange is made by,

or upon cmy information received through such agency,

whether such sale or exchange be made before or after the expiration of this agreement, at the above or. any other

[743]

amount named or accepted by me, I will pay to said agents Five Per Cent of such selling price, as a commission and compensation for such services.” The court found that “the plaintiff interested one John Greott in the purchase of said property . . . and, thereafter, the said defendants sold said ranch property to said John Greott and accepted and received from him, in payment thereof, the sum of thirty thousand dollars . . . That the said buyer of property, to wit, John Greott, was procured by plaintiff, and said sale to said John Greott was made by and upon information received by said defendants from plaintiff.” The foregoing findings present the only questions that are in controversy between the parties. In fact, during the progress of the trial the learned counsel for appellants declared, “I suppose the only question in this case is, was Mr. Gray or Mr. Greott the purchaser,” and subsequently he said, “Of course, the real issue in this case is what was the procuring cause of the sale; that is the real question in this ease. ’ ’ The record contains evidence of these facts as substantially stated by respondent: After the execution of this contract, and before any written notice of its withdrawal, plaintiff took several persons out to look at the property in an endeavor to interest them as buyers. Finally he did interest one John Greott, took him and his wife out to inspect the property in person, introduced them to the defendants as being possible purchasers and spent with them two or three hours while they examined and talked with the defendants about the entire property. Greott liked the place and was very much interested in it, but having already an offer outstanding for another .place said he would make no offer until he heard from that, when he would talk business, would let them know and would make them an offer. Within a short time afterward plaintiff saw Greott twice and each time was advised that Greott had not yet found out about his offer for the other place, and was not ready to talk business concerning the purchase of this. While plaintiff was still waiting for Greott to answer, he evidently learned that he was not to get the other place, and the transaction occurred by which the defendants conveyed their property to Greott by deed dated April 19, 1919, and on the same day taken by Greott TirmKftlf to the recorder’s office, and there recorded. Thereupon plaintiff sought out Greott and inquired why he had