Case Name: LUEDDEMANN v. RUDOLF
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-01-11
Citations: 79 Or. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: LUEDDEMANN v. RUDOLF.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice McBride and Mr. Justice Benson concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 249–259

Head Matter:
Argued December 10, 1915,
reversed January 11,
rehearing denied February 15, 1916.
LUEDDEMANN v. RUDOLF.
(154 Pac. 116; 155 Pac. 172.)
Brokers—Necessity of Acceptance of Offer to Sell or Exchange.
1. A firm of real estate brokers received a letter from defendant in answer to their advertisement in a local paper, offering to sell or exchange certain land at a stated price and at a fixed sum as commission, and in their reply informed the defendant that the owner of the places they advertised could not consider his offer, giving reasons therefor, and then made a counter proposition, to which no response was made, therefore no contract of employment of the brokers by the defendant resulted.
Brokers—Contract of Employment must be in Writing.
2. Under Section 808, subdivision 8, L. O. L., an agreement entered into authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell or purchase real estate for compensation or a commission must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged. Henry v. Barker, 61 Or. 276 (118 Pac. 206, 122 Pac. 298), approved.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Pleading—Sufficiency of Answer—“Except as Hereinafter Stated.”
3. Where defendant files an answer stating, “Except as hereinafter admitted, stated, or qualified, the defendant denies each and every allegation within the amended complaint of the plaintiffs contained,” such answer amounts to a complete traverse, unless the new matter stated by the defendant makes a case for the plaintiffs.
Frauds, Statute of—Sufficiency of Pleading.
4. An allegation in defendant’s answer that the only writing between the parties is a certain letter, a copy of which is attached as an exhibit, and that the same did not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds, such statement is an affirmative plea of the statute, and does not excuse plaintiffs from proving the allegations of their complaint.
Brokers—Necessity of Contract in Writing to Recover Commissions.
5. Without a lawful contract in writing to support the same, a broker is not entitled to compensation for his efforts to sell a farm, no matter how valuable his services may have been to the owner, for, in the absence of such writing, he is nothing more than a mere volunteer and not entitled to commissions.
[As to right of real estate broker to recover commissions under oral contract of employment when statute requires written contract, see note in Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1133.]
Brokers — letters Insufficient to Comply With Statute of Frauds.
6. Letters passing between plaintiff and defendant held insufficient to comply with statute of frauds relating to broker’s contract for the sale of real property, there being no consideration named in' any of the correspondence; consideration being that which induces a party to act or promise, and an acceptance is necessary to support a contract initiated by an offer.
Brokers — Contract to Pay Commissions must Express a Consideration.
7. There are three requisites necessary to support an agreement to pay commission to a real estate broker, as applied to this case. They are: A written memorandum of the agreement, a consideration expressed in the writing, and the signature of the defendant, and even if plaintiffs have, by their efforts, procured a purchaser for defendant’s land, yet performance does not prove a contract of which the law says a writing shall be the only evidence, and no other shall be received.
Statutes — Encroachment on Legislative Powers by the Judiciary.
8. A statute may be drastic and its enforcement even oppressive, yet this will not justify the court to disregard the plain words of the law, and any relief or remedy must be found in a change of the law by the legislature.
■From Lane: George F. Skipworth, Judge.
Department 1.
Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
Tbis is an action by Max Lueddemann, Ernest L. Lueddemann and J. B. Ruley, as copartners under tbe firm name of Lueddemann, Ruley & Co., against William Rudolf to recover $1,000 as broker’s commissions claimed to have been earned by the plaintiffs in effecting a sale of the land of the defendant.
The complaint was denied, and other issues raised, which are not deemed material for the consideration of the case. From a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. H. E. Slattery.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. Jesse Stearns and Mr. Fred E. Smith, with an oral argument by Mr. Stearns.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.
According to the hill of exceptions the plaintiff Lueddemann testified that on March 16, 1914, he received through the United States mail a letter from the defendant, "Exhibit A" which is here set out:
"Yamhill, Oregon, Mar. 16 — 14.
"Lueddemann Ruley Company.
"Sir I seen your Ade in the Sunday Oregonian that you had land to trade for a wheat ranch that I would trade for a good dairy ranch. My farm is 5 miles north of Kahlotus, Franklin Co. Wash, consists of 1440 aehers, 1300 in cultivation, 650 in fall wheat and 650 to bee summer followed free to buyer. Place rented to Nov. 1st, this fall. My price is $27.00 acher; there is a mortgage of $9025, against it, $1725 due this fall; $1300 next fall; $6000 in 1916. Buildings only fair; small house, bam room for 25 head of horses, well and windmill. SW 1-4 of sec. 12; all sec. 13; all of sec. 14 Town. 14 R. 34. I will give $1000. Com. on a trade or I will give you $1500 on cash sale. In'case of cash sale I will cut my price a little. Will give longtime with fair cash payment down. Hope to hear from you soon. Your truly,
"Wm. Rudolf."
The same witness testified that in-answer to the foregoing letter he wrote, signed and mailed to the defendant at his postoffice, Yamhill, Oregon, the following-communication :
"Portland, Oregon, March 21, 1914.
"Mr. William Rudolf, R. 1, Yamhill, Oregon.
"Dear Sir : Replying to your favor of March 16th, the owner of the three places we advertised could not consider your property, as it amounts to more than he would care to undertake. He would assume up to say $4,000 or $5,000, but your property amounts to over $38,000, and he would have to assume over $20,000, so it is out of the question. We are glad, however, to know about your property, as we believe that we can get you a trade. Please let me know whether all of this years crop goes with the place, or is it rented, and if rented, when can you give possession? Are they to plow the Summer fallow even if you trade the place off? How far are you from the nearest station? Is there any running water on your place, or any alfalfa land? Is there any stock and implements included? Would you cut the place in two, that is, would you trade part of it? How high would you go, if you could get a good stocked and equipped dairy farm? Please let me know about these matters, and I will try to put up a good proposition to you as we have a number of things to offer for a good wheat farm.
"Yours truly,
"Lueddemann, Ruley & Co.,
"By Max Lueddemann."
The plaintiffs stated to the court that these two letters constituted the contract of employment, and that they relied upon them as constituting the agreement between the parties whereby the defendant employed the plaintiffs to effect a trade of his land. In order tor establish a contract upon offer and acceptance the acceptance must be in the precise terms of the offer. In other words, the acceptance must precisely meet the terms of the offer, or there is no meeting of minds so essential to the validity of a contract. The following excerpt from the letter of the plaintiff conclusively shows that the offer of the defendant was not accepted:
"Replying to your favor of March 16th, the owner of the three places we advertised could not consider your property, as it amounts to more than he would care to undertake. He would assume up to say $4,000 or $5,000, but your property amounts to over $38,000, and he would have to assume over $20,000 so it is out of the question. ' '
The remainder of the plaintiff's letter at best is nothing more than a counter proposition. There was no acceptance of this counter proposition according to the statements of the plaintiff that the two letters mentioned constituted the whole contract. Section 808, L. O. L., says:
"In the following cases the agreement is void unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his lawfully authorized agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement shall not be received other than the writing, or secondary evidence of its contents, in the cases prescribed by law. 8. An agreement entered into subsequent to the taking effect of this act, authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell or purchase real estate for compensation or a commission."
As stated, the only writings offered in evidence are not sufficient in point of law to constitute a contract. The case is controlled by Henry v. Harker, 61 Or. 276 (118 Pac. 205, 122 Pac. 298), where it was decided that the writings appearing in evidence did not constitute a contract by offer and acceptance.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed.
Reversed. Rehearing Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice McBride and Mr. Justice Benson concur.