Ayres v. Thomas
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Brokerage—Earning of Commissions — Completion of Transaction— Procuring Cause.—In order to entitle a broker to commissions, the transaction must be completed, or he must have completed his part in the transaction, and the failure of the negotiation must be due to the interference of the principal, or to outside causes; and where a contract or sale is effected, the broker must be the efficient agent or procuring cause of the contract or of the sale.
Id.—Solicitor’s Commission—Improper Instructions—Services Tending to Obtain Orders—Introduction of Customers.—In an action upon an agreement providing that the plaintiff should solicit orders for the output of defendant’s business as a foundryman, and should receive, a commission on all orders secured, an instruction to the effect that if, at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff performed any services which tended to obtain work done by the defendant for third parties, or if he introduced to defendant or to his manager or superintendent parties who subsequently ordered work, he would be entitled to his commissions, is erroneous as being too broad; and the error is not cured or qualified by joining disjunctively with such instruction the proposition that if the plaintiff, by means of his solicitations, brought the attention of any parties to the defendant or his manager or superintendent, and by reason thereof work was afterward ordered by such third parties, plaintiff would be entitled to his commission.
Id.—Instruction as to Procuring Cause—Objectionable Clause—Intervention of Other Influence.—An instruction requested by the defendant that “ to entitle a solicitor to a commission on work or orders claimed to have been obtained by him, it must appear that he was the moving or procuring cause of consummation of the transaction; it is not enough that the plaintiff has something to do with the transac,tion, unless it appear that that something was the procuring or moving cause of the consummation of the transaction, and that that something would and did procure such consummation, without the intervention or aid of any other.essential matter, thing, or influence,” is correct, with the exception of the last clause, consisting of the words, “without the intervention or aid of any other essential matter, thing, or influence,” which clause renders the instruction objectionable.
Searls, C. This action was brought to recover $1,584.69, with interest on $831.48 thereof from July 28, 1893, and interest on the balance thereof from October 9, 1894.
The cause was tried before a jury and a verdict returned in favor of plaintiff for $1,694.
[142]Upon a motion for a new trial the court made an order granting a new trial unless plaintiff should consent to reduce the verdict by $117.45, leaving the verdict to stand at $1,576.55, to which deduction plaintiff consented, whereupon the motion for a new trial was denied and judgment entered for $1,576.55.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. Plaintiff acted as an agent of defendant, a foundryman, in soliciting orders for the output of defendant’s business on commission, and also to some extent as a collector for said defendant. There are five counts in plaintiff’s complaint. The evidence shows that all of the five causes of action are based upon three several grounds: 1. A claim for services in obtaining orders for the products of defendant’s business as an iron founder; 2. A claim for money paid by plaintiff to defendant’s use; 3. A claim for labor performed by plaintiff as collector for defendant.
, The services were rendered and the money paid out between May 15, 1892, and October 9, 1894.
Appellant attacks the ninth instruction given by the court to the jury at the request of plaintiff, and urges that it was erroneous and injurious to defendant. It is as follows:
“9. The jury are further instructed that to entitle the plaintiff to commissions from the defendant for work done by the defendant for third parties, that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that he did everything in connection with procurement of the work. If, at the request of the defendant, he performed any services which tended to obtain the work, or introduced the parties to the defendant or to the defendant’s managers or superintendent, or if you should find from the evidence that the plaintiff, by means of his solicitations, brought the attention of any parties to the defendant, or his manager or superintendent, and by reason thereof work was afterward ordered by such third parties, then, in such case, the plaintiff should be entitled [143]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)