Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0684-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAYRE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 753
    SHEFFIELD v. SHARP
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 6402.
    Decided May 17, 1926.
    Judges Mauck, Sayre and Middleton, 4th Dist., sitting.
    First Publication of this Opinion.
    997. REAL ESTATE — 257. Commissions-— 54. Agency — Where agreement sets forth that agent is to have the exclusive right, for one year, to sell or exchange real estate, and owner, within that time, sells same through own efforts, agent can recover commission.
    Error to Common Pleas.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Arthur P. Gustafson, Cleveland, for Sheffield.
    A. J. Bradley, Cleveland, for Sharp.
   SAYRE, J.

Walter Sharp instituted an action in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas against Mira Sheffield, claiming that, by the terms of an oral contract, he was to act as her agent in the sale or exchange of real estate owned by her and that he should have the sole and exclusive agency or right to sell the same, within a period of one year; and that, in the event the land was sold by Sheffield through her own efforts, Sharp should nevertheless be entitled to his commission. It was claimed that, during the year, Sheffield sold the premises.

The verdict and judgment were in favor of Sharp, and error is prosecuted.

“If an owner of real estate chooses to make a contract with a broker, in which it is stipulated that the broker shall have the exclusive right to sell the property within a specified time, and that he shall be entitled to receive a certain commission if a sale be made within the time designated, no matter who makes it, he- is bound by its terms, and cannot be relieved from a bad bargain because his agreement may have been foolish or improvident.” 22 Pa. 357.

There was no error in the courts charging that if plaintiff had a contract for the exclusive sale of the property, no matter by whom it might be sold, he could recover.

The question of the statute of frauds does not enter into the case because plaintiff claimed no interest in the land and the contract was susceptible of performance within the year. Randall v. Turner, 17 OS. 270.

(Mauch, PJ., and Middleton, J,, concur.)