Case Name: Pensacola Finance Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. B. Simpson, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1921-11-09
Citations: 82 Fla. 368
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pensacola Finance Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. B. Simpson, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Browne, C. J., and Taylor, J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 368–375

Head Matter:
Pensacola Finance Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. B. Simpson, Defendant in Error.
Opinion Filed November 9, 1921.
Petition for Rehearing Denied December 17, 1921.
Where the owner of real estate engages an agent, as well as other agents, to obtain a purchaser therefor at a stated price net to the seller, the agent to be paid a commission for obtaining and producing a purchaser, and the agent obtains and sends a prospective purchaser to the seller, who, without knowledge or notice that such prospective purchaser was obtained and sent to him by the agent, but supposing the proposed purchaser had come direct without the intervention of an agent, made a price to the purchaser that did not include an agent’s commission. Subsequently the seller was advised that the proposed purchaser had been obtained and sent to the seller by the agent who claimed a commission for such services, whereupon the seller withdrew his offer made direct to the proposed purchaser and then afterwards by a new transaction sold at the same price to the same person with full knowledge of the agent’s services in obtaining the purchaser and of his claim for commissions, Held, that the agent was entitled to his commissions and the essential facts being established a directed verdict for the agent was not error.
A Writ of Error to the Court of Record for Escambia County; C. Moreno Jones, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
B. Pope Beese, for Plaintiff in Error;
Watson & Pasco, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Whitfield, J.
The declaration herein by R. B. Simpson alleges that the defendant company employed Simpson "to obtain a purchaser" for described real estate at a price acceptable to defendant; that Simpson produced to defendant as a purchaser one Russell who purchased the property for $3,000.00, by reason thereof Simpson claims a commission on such sale, a second count was for work done and services performed. To the first count the defendant pleaded a denial that Simpson produced Russell to defendant as a purchaser of the property. A denial of indebtedness was plead to the second count. At the trial, judgment on a directed verdict for the plaintiff was rendered and defendant took writ of error.
It appears that the president of the defendant company had asked the plaintiff, a real estate sales agent, as also other such agents, to sell the property, at about $3,000.00 net; that Simpson procured Russell as a prospective purchaser and sent him to Knowles the president of the defendant company, who, not then knowing Simpson had sent Russell to him as a prospective purchaser of the property, and thinking he was making an offer direct to Russell without the intervention of a sales agent, offered to sell the property to Russell for $3,000.00. Subsequently the officers of the defendant company were notified that Simpson had procured Russell as a purchaser- and claimed a commission of $150.00. On August'30, 1919, Knowles as president of the defendant company wrote Simpson that in view of his claiming a commission the company was "writing Mr. Russell withdrawing our offer, because under no circumstances have we offered the property for less than $3,000.00 net to us, and even at that price we have decided to withdraw." On September 1st, 1919, the defendant company conveyed the property to Russell for $3,000.00, thé president of the company testifying that he told Russell: "Simpson claims a commission as a broker — you will have to indemnify me if I have to pay him a commission on the sale." He also testified that he did not "recognize Mr. Simpson's claim at any time to his commission."
When Russell the purchaser obtained from Knowles a price of $3,000.00 for the property, Knowles did not know Simpson had been instrumental in securing Russell as a prospective purchaser, and consequently Simpson may not then have produced a purchaser as alleged in the declaration. But when the offer to Russell was withdrawn by the defendant and subsequently a sale was made to Russell for the same price, $3,000.00, such sale as a new transaction was made with full knowledge of the services and claims by Simpson, and of course the sale was made subject to Simpson's claim for commissions as compensation for such services. The new transaction could have made the selling price include the amount of the commission, but whether it did or not, the defendant is liable therefor, Simpson's services in procuring and producing a purchaser having been rendered, and notice thereof and of his claim for compensation therefor, having been given to the defendant company when the new transaction and sale occurred.
As these essential facts are established and the amount of the commission, if any is due, having been agreed on, there was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff and in entering judgment thereon.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, J., concur.
Ellis and West, J. J., specially concur.