Case Name: JAMES A. WATERMAN, Appellant, v. F. M. BOLTINGHOUSE, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1890-01-31
Citations: 82 Cal. 659
Docket Number: No. 13377
Parties: JAMES A. WATERMAN, Appellant, v. F. M. BOLTINGHOUSE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
[No. 13377.
Department Two
January 31, 1890.]
JAMES A. WATERMAN, Appellant, v. F. M. BOLTINGHOUSE, Respondent.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT — BROKERAGE — EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL REALTY — Sale by Principal —-Commissions. —An agent or broker to whom is given the exclusive right, for a certain period, to sell a tract of land belonging to another, cannot recover his commissions when the owner sells the land during this period, unless he has produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy on the terms specified in his contract of employment.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Meux & Edwards, for Appellant.
E. C. Winchell, and Wharton & Short, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Thornton, J.
This is an action by plaintiff to recover commissions for an alleged sale of land. He never produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy on the terms of his employer, the defendant. He cannot, therefore, recover. (Dolan v. Scanlan, 57 Cal. 261; Moses v. Bierling, 31 N. Y. 462; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378; 22 Am. Rep. 441.)
Here the plaintiff had the exclusive right to sell for a term ending January 1, 1889, and the defendant, during this period, himself effected a sale. Though the plaintiff had the right to sell, to the exclusion of his employer, still he cannot recover his commissions unless he has produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy as above stated. This is expressly held, and correctly held, in Moses v. Bierling, supra, which is a case similar to this.
The plaintiff argues this case as if it was a suit to recover damages for defendant's breach of contract. The complaint does not set forth any such action, but one to recover the compensation agreed to be paid on a sale.
There is no error.
Judgment affirmed.
McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.