The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1921-09-09
COURT DECISION.

Decision of the Windsor County
VT, Court, in Real Estate Cade.
A recent decision of the Windsor
County, VT, Court, unfolding the
relative status of the real estate
agent and his client, is of unusual
interest to farm owners in New
England. The established inviola-
bility of contract is upheld by the
court decision, which found "iudg-
ment for the plaintiff for $1,000,
with interest from date of sale
from Kennedy to Hilthon." The
sale was made in June, 1919, but
the property was decided in July,
same year, and settlement was fl
nally made in May, 1921.
The plaintiff in the case was a
well-known real estate man living
in Bradford, VT, who dealt in the
sale of farms. The defendant was
the owner of a farm of 500 acres
close to the village of Bradford.
The latter on several occasions
spoke to the real estate man re-
9uesting him to get a customer
for his farm and certain stock and
personal property, saying, You
Ndll lldNC al gOu BCN ONO PAU1Nbbs
He was informed that the real es-
tate man did not do business in
that way: that from the listed
price of the farm would be de-
Quoted the agents commission.
After some further parleying on
the part of the owner, the latter
filled out a listing blank, placing
the property in the hands of the
agent to SELL A prospective pur-
chaser, Mr.. Hilthon of No. Caro-
lima, came later to Bradford, where
he met the assistant of the real
estate man, who accompanied the
custumer to see the property in
question. Mr. Hilthon looked ov-
er the farm and inluiring the price
was informed by the owner that
it was $4,000, these being the fig
ures stipulated at the agents Of
flee. Mr.. Hilthon, however, left
the place and went to another
part of the State.
The owner again consulted his
agent for advice, as he was afraid
he could not close the deal with
Mr. Hilthon at the price stipulat-
ed, $4,000, and the real estate man
volunteered to cut his commission
50 per cent The owner answered
that he did not wish to lose the
customer, and would not let the
commission stand in the way.
A short tim later the own n
went to Burlington, met Mr.. Hill
thon there, and agreed to sell him
the property for the sum of $780,
COO. The man from the south pur-
rh.uaa NJ fHaf anA tho no
pers were executed.
After the close of the deal, the
seller called upon the real estate
man with HON he had listed and
informed him of the sale. He of
fered to present" the agent with
a check for 5000 which he said he
had in his pocket, which amount
he considered he did not owe to
the agent "but which he might &C
cept as q present for what he had
DONE" The real estate man refus-
ed to accept the check, and de-
manded the agreed commission OF
five per cent on the sale price,
as previously stimulated. TVS the
farmer refused to pay, annd the
action in court followed, resulting
in a victory for the real estate
man.
In ITS findings of facts the Court
concludes I'VE find that whsn the
defendant consumated tie sale 70
Hilthon for $4,000. he knew the
plaintiff. agent. expected to re-
ceive commission Of FIVE per-
cent Of the sale price. and not up-
on the basis Of receiving the eX-
cess in price above S20000.-adv.