The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-18
HANNoN V. EsPALLA.

Action for Commissions as Real Es- tate Broker. (Decided November IS. 1906. 42 So Rep. 443.) l. Evidence; parol evidence as to employment; ambiguity.-where the writing was ambiguous as to whose agent E. was. and as to whom the commission was payable. parol evil dence Is admissible to explain the in- strument and to show whether or not there was an agreement whereby one employed the other as his agent. 2. Brokers; action for commission; evidence.--Where no objection was raised as to the form or genuineness of a deed and receipt purporting to have been signed and acknowledged by | the owner of the land, such deed and l receipt, together with proof of their tender to defendant, are admissible in evidence. without further proof as tending to show that defendant could had he desired to do so, in an action | of this character.
 g. Same: time within which to per- form service.--A broker employed tc negotiate for the purchase of property ] has a reasonable time within which to | perform the service, and an under
 standing made. after the making of the alleged contract of employment | that the broker was to get the deed by Il to the commission dependent upon the | arrival of the deed by that day. 4. Same; admissibility of evidence right to abstract of title.-Where the owner had not agreed to furnish an ab- stract of title. 1t was inadmissible to show that the defendant demanded ar | abstract of title from the owner, which
 was refused. 1t appearing that he did not place his refusal to purchase upor I the ground that the title was not good | nor was it necessary, under this state I of facts, for the broker, suing for his commission, to show that the title was clear.
 5. Same-Where there was evidence
 tending to show that defendant had de-
 manded the return of the writing ex- ecuted on a certain day, alleged to show & contract of employment, and al the same time recognising his obliga- tion to pay plaintiff a commission, the defendant should have been allowed to show that the paper he demanded re- ferred to another transaction, and that at the same time plaintiff presented q claim for other commission. not includ-
 ing the one here sued on, and did not prior to later date, make demand for the sum here claimed.
 6. Same.--Evidence that before any agreement for purchase was reached plaintiff had submitted an offer to the owner of the property as the purported agent of defendant, was admissible as tending to show the relationship of the parties, and plaintiffs efforts to pur- chase the property for defendant. 2. Evidence; self-serving deciara- tion.--A statement in letter from one broker to another that the principal would pay the broker a commission for negotiating the purchase, being a self-serving declaration. was inadmis- sible as evidence.
 s. Brokers; amount of compensa- ton; necessity of proof.--Where 1t ap- peared that broker was entitled to a fixed commission under a contract for negotiating a purchase, if he was em- pIoyed to negotiate, evidence to show what was reasonable compensation for such service was inadmissible.
 Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
 Haralson. Dowdell and Denson. JJ., concur@