Title: Gleichenhaus v. Pratt
Citation: 190 Kan. 1, 372 P.2d 273
Docket Number: 42,493
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: June 9, 1962

190 Kan. 1 (1962)
372 P.2d 273
JACK M. GLEICHENHAUS, Appellant,
v.
JAMES V. PRATT, Appellee.
No. 42,493

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 9, 1962.
Michael A. Barbara, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant.
Warren W. Shaw, of Topeka, argued the cause and Wendell L. Garlinghouse, William Hergenreter and Carl W. Quarnstrom, all of Topeka, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JACKSON, J.:
The appellant, a realtor, brought this action against appellee-defendant claiming that defendant owed plaintiff a real estate commission. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and he appeals.
*2 The trial court remarked when sustaining the demurrer that plaintiff had failed to prove any contract for such a commission.
We have a motion to dismiss the appeal based upon the fact that the transcript was not filed with the clerk of the district court all as provided by G.S. 1949, 60-3311. Plaintiff filed the transcript as soon as the matter was brought to his attention. Although this is ground for dismissing the appeal, the court has tended to be lenient where no real embarrassment to the opposite party has resulted. (In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 356 P.2d 849: Zerger v. Stucky, 186 Kan. 142, 348 P.2d 612.) But appellants must not trade on the good nature of the court, because the rule is one that should be observed. Since defendant had a copy of the transcript himself and admits no inconvenience, we pass the matter.
The plaintiff is a licensed real estate broker in Topeka. In the early part of 1959, plaintiff appears to have been endeavoring to find a new store building for Louis Pozez, a business man of the city. Plaintiff first showed Pozez a store building near Tenth and Mulvane. Then plaintiff took Pozez to the Hollywood-Maxwell building which, we are told, is owned by Doris Pratt. The next day, Mr. Pozez and plaintiff called on defendant Pratt. This last building apparently would not do because of its lack of parking space.
Later, plaintiff arranged for Pozez and Pratt and finally Pratt's attorney Mr. Shaw to visit a site spoken of as the Meadow Acres site, which was owned by a Mrs. Sperry. During the conversation with Mrs. Sperry it was definitely established that Mrs. Sperry had an agency contract with plaintiff and would pay him a commission on a sale of the site. The idea at that time seems to have been that defendant Pratt would buy the site, put up a building, and lease it to Pozez. The Meadow Acres site was not purchased, however.
Later, Mr. Pozez called Mr. Palmer, a long-time friend of his, who owned some land on Topeka Avenue. Pozez discussed with Palmer the possibility of Palmer putting up a building for Pozez which Palmer felt that he could not do at that time. Whereupon, Mr. Pozez suggested that perhaps they should go to see Mr. Pratt.
Pozez and Palmer did contact defendant Pratt and after considerable time a plan was worked out among the three of them whereby Palmer leased his land to defendant Pratt who thereupon constructed a store building for lease to Pozez who leased the building from defendant for a term of fifteen years at the rent of $3,780 per *3 month, together with an option of renewing the lease at the same rent for another fifteen years.
The plaintiff makes no claim that he had anything to do with procuring the appearance of Palmer nor that he had any connection with the making of the lease involved in the arrangement between Palmer, Pratt and Pozez.
Plaintiff does claim he was the primary and producing cause of said lease agreement and that he found Louis Pozez who was ready, willing and able to enter into the lease agreement with Pratt.
The question in the case is, did plaintiff show that he had a contract in which defendant engaged plaintiff as his agent to find a lessor and if so, was it broad enough to cover the Palmer deal worked out by the parties thereto without plaintiff's help?
As has been said, the trial court that heard the evidence thought not and his oral statement was somewhat revealing:
The evidence at the trial consisted of the testimony of Mr. Pozez and of the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff has pointed out certain parts of his own testimony which he claims established a contract between defendant Pratt and himself. We shall set out these parts of the testimony for examination:
"Q. When was this?
"A. This was early in '59.
After taking Mr. Pozez to see the Hollywood-Maxwell building, plaintiff reported to defendant as follows:
..............
"Q. Now, was that your statement to Mr. Pratt?
"A. I asked him.
"Q. What was the response, if any?
"Q. Was Mr. Pozez present at that time?
"A. Yes."
This later conversation was also testified to by plaintiff:
"Q. Raise your voice.
"Q. Where did this transaction occur?
We can only say that in our opinion the above testimony, giving it all benefit of liberal construction as we must on a demurrer, falls short of establishing a contract of brokerage as to the Palmer deal. *5 We do not have to decide whether plaintiff had any contract with defendant as to any of the properties he worked on. But there is nothing in the testimony about how long the contract, if there was one, was to last. Furthermore, the prime requisite was a site for the proposed building, as defendant remarked above. There is no intimation as to the amount of plaintiff's commission; and we now find that plaintiff claims he should receive a commission which might amount to $66,000 for merely introducing Pozez to Pratt. We are certain defendant never agreed to pay for a project which plaintiff had nothing to do with. The plaintiff is endeavoring to read something into the evidence which is not there.
In 12 C.J.S. Brokers § 60, p. 134 it is said:
The case of Patee v. Moody, 166 Kan. 198, 199 P.2d 798, involved a real estate broker who claimed a commission upon facts which now appear stronger than the evidence in the case at bar. Yet, this court in the Patee case reversed the trial court and sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence. In the Patee case this court said:
Another informative opinion is found in Zeligson v. Hartman-Blair, Inc., 135 F.2d 874, in which Judge Huxman was the author of the opinion of the 10th circuit court of appeals. Judge Huxman said in part:
It may be noted that the plaintiff testified in this case he had never had a brokerage contract with Mr. Pozez. Yet on July 7, 1959, shortly before bringing this action plaintiff wrote a letter to Mr. Pozez which he sent by registered mail making a claim on Pozez for the same commission as he now brings suit for against defendant. Was plaintiff in doubt himself as to whom he represented in this supposed deal?
Defendant raised this claim against Pozez in his demurrer to the evidence by claiming that plaintiff represented opposing parties in the transaction without advising them of that fact, see 12 C.J.S. Brokers § 43, p. 105.
*7 We only believe plaintiff did not know whether he had a contract with either Pozez or the defendant.
We believe the trial court was correct and the order appealed from is hereby affirmed. It is so ordered.