Title: Stewart v. Brock
Citation: 290 P.2d 682, 60 N.M. 216
Docket Number: 5956
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 1955

290 P.2d 682 (1955) 60 N.M. 216 Willis T. STEWART d/b/a Willis T. Stewart Realty Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen L. BROCK, Defendant-Appellee. No. 5956. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 1, 1955. Milton S. Seligman, H. Leslie Williams, Albuquerque, for appellant. Irwin S. Moise, Lewis R. Sutin, Albuquerque, for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. This is an action to recover a commission for services rendered by a broker in procuring a purchaser for real estate and neat cattle owned by defendant. The case was tried by jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant and plaintiff appealed. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the district court. The facts of the case are substantially these: On February 13, 1951, Willis T. Stewart, a licensed broker, plaintiff-appellant, wrote a letter to Stephen L. Brock, defendant-appellee, the last paragraph of which reads: On July 16, 1952, the defendant wrote plaintiff a letter (enclosing therein a listing of his property), which is as follows: *684 On July 24, 1952, pursuant to above letter, the plaintiff in company with Kenneth Mims, his real estate agent, drove to defendant's place and there, together with the defendant, inspected said ranch. After inspecting the ranch a discussion was had with defendant regarding the price thereof. Defendant at that time thought maybe he could get $75,000, but plaintiff and his agent were of the opinion that the ranch could be sold for $65,000. Shortly thereafter Mims showed the ranch to William D. Durio, a prospective purchaser, and later introduced him to the defendant. Subsequently defendant and Mr. Durio discussed the possibility of a sale of the ranch together with 150 cows and 6 bulls, but nothing definite was arrived at. On August 16, 1952, the defendant wrote plaintiff as follows: On August 19, 1952, the plaintiff wrote defendant as follows: And on August 29, 1952, plaintiff again wrote the defendant as follows: As the negotiations were going on between the defendant and Mr. Durio for the sale of defendant's ranch and cattle, Mr. Durio did not have the $20,000 in ready cash for the down payment on the deal, but would have had it by the time the transaction was to be closed, to-wit, December 1, 1952. The defendant knew this. As a matter of fact, prior to the time the contract was drawn by Mr. Modrall, the defendant made a trip to Las Cruces with Mr. Durio and there saw the property that Durio was going to dispose of to raise the money to close the deal with defendant. After reaching an agreement on the sales price of the land and cattle, the parties *685 went to the office of Mr. J.R. Modrall, Albuquerque, New Mexico, to have him draw the proper papers regarding said sale. On October 31, 1952, Mr. Modrall drew the following papers which were signed and acknowledged by the defendant, his wife, and Mr. Durio: Warranty deed from Stephen L. Brock and Jean H. Brock, his wife, in favor of William D. Durio; a relinquishment of grazing lease covering state lease; chattel mortgage from Durio to Brock, securing principal indebtedness of $19,100 and secured by mortgage on 150 cows and 6 bulls; a note for $19,100 from Durio to Brock; a bill of sale signed by Brock to Durio covering the cattle. It was understood and agreed by and between the respective parties that all of these instruments would be retained by Mr. Modrall until such time as Mr. Durio would pay Brock the down payment of $20,000, not later than December 1, 1952, at which time Mr. Modrall would deliver the same to the parties. Mr. Modrall told the parties, using his own words as follows: Mr. Durio paid the defendant $2000 on the day the contract was signed, but he does not remember whether it was before the contract was signed or afterwards. The record also discloses that sometime during the early part of November the purchaser went to defendant's ranch and there branded all of the cattle hereinabove referred to with his brand and at that time gave the defendant $5,000 which he kept. Four or five days thereafter Durio telephoned the defendant and told him that something of a personal nature had come up and he would not be able to go through with the deal. On November 6, 1952, the plaintiff wrote defendant as follows: On November 24, 1952, the plaintiff again wrote a letter to the defendant regarding his commission, as follows: On November 28, 1952, the defendant wrote plaintiff as follows: On December 10, 1952, the plaintiff wrote defendant: On December 15, 1952, defendant wrote plaintiff: On December 19, 1952, plaintiff wrote defendant: The plaintiff at the close of all of the evidence moved the court for a directed verdict, in words and figures as follows: As to the first ground set forth in the motion for a directed verdict, we are of opinion that the correspondence by letters between plaintiff and defendant, relating to the finding of a purchaser for defendant's ranch and to the commission to be paid constituted a binding contract between them, and the interpretation of such a contract was a question of law for the court and not a question for submission to the jury to determine. Buxton v. Colver, 102 Kan. 871, 171 P. 1158; W.C. Tyrell Trust v. Lovell, Tex. Com.App., 27 S.W.2d 142; Doe v. Eggleston, 106 N.J.L. 565, 146 A. 175. The contract of employment in the instant case being complete and clear, is as conclusive upon the parties as if it had been reduced to a single writing in the most solemn form. When the plaintiff, pursuant to above correspondence, brought the land owner and the prospective purchaser together, and they after negotiating with each other came to an oral agreement (which was thereafter reduced to writing), as to the purchase price, commission, and the date upon which the down payment should be made before the deal was to take effect, the land owner could not thereafter by accepting $8,500.00 from the purchaser on the down payment, mutually agree among themselves to call the deal off and thereby defeat the plaintiff of his commission. It is well settled that a broker has earned his agreed commission when he produces a prospect who is ready, willing and able to purchase on terms agreeable to the seller, Williams v. Engler, 46 N.M. 454, 131 P.2d 267; Wilson v. Sewell, 50 N.M. 121, 123, 171 P.2d 647; Simmons v. Libbey, 53 N.M. 362, 208 P.2d 1070, 12 A.L.R.2d 1404. This is precisely what happened in this case. When the land owner accepted the prospect produced by plaintiff as a purchaser, the broker's right to commission became fixed. Simmons v. Libbey, supra. As to the second ground urged by plaintiff in his motion for a directed verdict, we are of opinion that the right to commission was not contingent upon the actual consummation of the deal between the purchaser *688 and defendant, but became complete when the broker produced a buyer able, ready and willing to purchase the ranch on terms fixed by the land owner. The negotiations must have been proceeding according to the terms prescribed by defendant and considered binding in the minds of the parties, otherwise the purchaser would not have paid the land owner $7000 and agreed to pay him an additional $1500, or 10% of the purchase price, in order to procure a cancellation of the negotiations. In view of the foregoing, the judgment is reversed, the cause remanded to the district court with directions to set aside its judgment and to enter a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $2500 and costs, an amount which the plaintiff himself virtually concedes to be an adequate commission in view of the circumstances here present. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur.