Case Name: BUROS et al v. CHAPMAN
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-01-14
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 142
Docket Number: No. 4791
Parties: BUROS et al v. CHAPMAN
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 142–142

Head Matter:
No. 134
BUROS et al v. CHAPMAN
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
No. 4791.
Decided Jan. 14, 1924
182. BROKERS — Placing property for sale in hands of real estate brokers entitles him to regular and customary commission — Failure to provide as to payment of taxes, insurance, does not warrant finding that agent had not procured purchaser as agreed.
Attorneys — Rocker & Schwartz, for Buros; Young, Stocker & Fenner, for Chapman; all of Cleveland.

Opinion:
SAYRE, J.
Epitomized Opinion
First Publication of this Opinion
This was an action to xecover a real estate commission. The contract was not written. In his suit filed in the Municipal Court of Cleveland the plaintiff claimed that the agreement was to procure a purchaser who was ready, able and willing to buy the premises at a valuation of $12,500 and that he was to receive 4 per cent commission on the seleling price. The defendant claimed that the agent was to procure from the buyer in addition to the $12,500, an amount equal to the agent's commission. The lower court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant prosecuted error. In sustaining the judgment, the Court of Appeals held:
1. As the defendant placed the property in the hands of the plaintiff to sell for him, the plaintiff was entitled to the regular and customary rate of 4 per cent for the selling of said property, even though the contract was •silent as to the matter of commissions.
2. As no understanding was had between the seller and the real estate agent as to the payment of taxes, insurance, certifieiate of title or rent, the fact that such matters were not included in the purchase price would not warrant a finding that the agent had not procured a purchaser as agreed.