The Washington herald., 1922-01-22
WHAT THE COURTS
HAVE HELD WILL
Aid REALTY men
Eight Real Estate Cases
Cited Should Prove In
teresting to Brokers.

Where lot was not sold by front
foot or square foot. but the sale
was in gross of the lot for GER
tain sum. the purchaser cannot re-
cover of the vendor for the differ
ence between the lot as DESERT bed
in the deed and the lesser amount
shown by survey.-Smythe v. Brun-
son. Supreme Court of South Caro-
lima. 1857 Southeastern, Ss3.
In determining whether a broker
is entitled to commissions for pro-
curing a tenant for the owner, the
true test Is whether the broker was
the procuring cause OF the lease,
and IL Is not necessary that the
broker inform the owner of the
Identity of the proposed lessee
McCready ". Nicholson. Supreme
Court Of Michigan. 1s2, Northwest
ern. 81.
A broker has no right to enforce
payment of commission unless he
has a contract, express or, implied,
whereby the seller Is obligated to
make payment: the mere fact that
a broker is the procuring cause Of
sale not as a matter of law deter
mining the question OF the sellers
liability-Powell v. Mulder. Court
of Civil Appeals OF Texas. 22S,
Southwestern, 3o2.
When land Is listed with a brok-
er. who is to receive a commission
for making the sale or finding a
purchaser. and no period is stipu-
lated In the contract for his exclus-
i've privilege, the owner may revoke
at any time. and sale by the owner
is treated as revocation, and
though an exclusive agency is
given the broker. IL there is no spe-
cial time fixed within which he is to
exercise his agency. and no exclus-
I've privilege of sale is given him,
the owner is not prohibited from
making a sale of the land himself,
thus terminating the contract: but
IL the exclusive privilege Is given
the broker to sell within a time
fixed, the owner thereby contracts
he will not sell the land himself,
".
Court OF Appeals of Kentucky. 229,
Southwestern, l32.
A written agreement to make a
deed for land when the purchaser
paid the balance OF the purchase
price, he now paying $500 to bind
said trade, is a contract for the
sale of the land binding on and en-
forceable against both parties, and
not merely an option to the pur-
chaser, and therefore the time for
payment of the balance of the pur-
chase price could, under the statute,
be extended by parol.-Howell VS..
Pate. Supreme Court of North
Carolina. 106, Southeastern, 454.
Where a brick building en-
croached into the street from two
thirds of an inch to two inches, ac-
cording to conflicting evidence. the
title to the property was thereby
| rendered unmarketable. as the doc
| trine de minimis, as relating to a
comparatively trifing cost to re-
move an encroachment, can have
no possible application to the re-
moval OF the brick facing of the
front of a substantial building
Perlman VS.. Stellwagon. Supreme
Court OF New York. 1877, N. Y.
Supp, s45.
Where attorney brought suit for
the recovery or perfection of title
to land under an express contract
with the client that the client
would execute a deed to a certain
parcel OF the land as compensation
for professional services. the attor-
ney had a lien on such parcel of
land, and a full compliance with
the contract by conveyance of the
land at its real value to the attor-
| ney was not a general assignment
OF the property within the purview
of Code 1907. Sec. 1895, and the
rights of the attorneys were prior
TO a Judgment obtained against the
client between the time of the max
ing of the contract and the convey
ance of the land.-W. T. Rawleigh
Co. vs. Zimmerman. Supreme Court
OF Alabama. 81. Southern, 372. -
n. II. E. J.