Schiro v. Parker

DOOLING, J.— This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant Schiro from a judgment of the superior court that he take nothing by reason of his complaint against defendant-respondent Parker. Appellant did recover the sum of $6,000 with 7 per cent interest per annum from June 1, 1951, from Parker’s codefendant Kallam. Kail am originally appealed from this judgment but upon his request the appeal as to him has been dismissed.

All the parties involved in this action are licensed real estate brokers. Appellant Schiro brought this action seeking to recover a commission allegedly due him as a result of the sale of property known as the Cheim Ranch located near Marysville to one Boccardo. Neither the seller nor the purchaser is a party to this action.

In November of 1950, Mr. Cheim discussed the selling of his property with respondent Parker. At that time he gave respondent Parker an oral listing to sell the property for $366,000. Parker proceeded to show this property to prospective purchasers.

Appellant Schiro heard that the property was for sale. He inspected the property and a few days later he returned to Marysville in order to see Mr. Cheim, the owner. At that time appellant Schiro told Cheim that he had a party [505]whom he thought he could interest in the property. Cheim replied that the listing was with respondent Parker and that appellant would have to see him. Appellant did see respondent Parker and discussed the possibility of working on the sale of the property with him. Respondent stated at that time that appellant could work with him on the sale. Sometime later, respondent Parker and appellant Schiro were in contact with Cheim and an authorization to sell the property was obtained from him. Respondent Parker testified that this authorization was given to him and that it gave him power to act on behalf of Cheim for himself (respondent) and for any other broker with whom he would wish to cooperate.

After respondent Parker had secured the written authorization to sell the property, he and appellant Schiro discussed the commission split in the event of such a sale by appellant Schiro. Respondent testified that he told appellant that he, respondent, would give appellant 60 per cent of the commission providing appellant sold the property. Respondent then wrote a note to appellant to confirm this understanding to the effect:

“Dear Mr. Schiro: It is understood as per our verbal agreement that should your office procure a purchaser for the Cheim’s property, you are to receive 60% of the commission collected on sale of same.”