Title: Heim v. Faulstich
Citation: 424 P.2d 1012, 70 Wash. 2d 688
Docket Number: 38598
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: March 9, 1967

70 Wn.2d 688 (1967) 424 P.2d 1012 STANLEY HEIM, Appellant, v. OTTO H. FAULSTICH et al., Respondents.[*] No. 38598. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One. March 9, 1967. O. Nels Stromberg, for appellant. Newell Smith (of Bell, Ingram &amp; Smith) and F.C. Knappe, for respondents. LANGENBACH, J.[] Appellant, a real estate broker, entered into a contract to sell respondents' farm for a commission. The property was described as "The O.H. Faulstich Farm, Route 1, Snohomish, Snohomish County, Washington," subject to all easements and excepting a tract of land definitely described by metes and bounds. Appellant alleged that he found a ready, able and willing buyer within the agreement's time limits, but respondents refused to accept him. Appellant sued for his commission and respondents pleaded, among other defenses, the statute of frauds. The court refused to strike this defense and instead granted respondents' motion for summary judgment of dismissal. This appeal followed. The only issue is whether the pleadings, viewed most favorably to appellant's case, raised a genuine issue as to a *689 material fact. Appellant argued that "a justiciable issue exists as to whether or not the Authority to Sell Real Estate ... is a sufficient agreement under the statute of frauds." This is a pure question of law. [1] RCW 19.36.010 reads: This language is identical with that earlier found in Rem. &amp; Bal. Code, § 5289 (P.C. 203 § 3). Discussing the latter we said in Cushing v. Monarch Timber Co., 75 Wash. 678, 684, 135 Pac. 660 (1913): See also Rogers v. Lippy, 99 Wash. 312, 314, 169 Pac. 858 (1918), where the description "my stock ranch located in sections 9, 17 and 21, township 3, south, range 13, east, Sweetgrass county, Montana" was held insufficiently definite to constitute compliance with the statute. That the same requirements for definiteness of description have been applied both in contracts for conveyance of land and in contracts by real estate brokers for commission is *690 indicated in Martin v. Seigel, 35 Wn.2d 223, 228, 212 P.2d 107, 23 A.L.R.2d 1 (1949). That case, one involving specific performance of a real estate contract, cites as authority in its discussion of sufficient legal description, Rogers v. Lippy, supra, a suit on a contract for broker's commission. What we said in Martin v. Seigel, supra, is equally applicable here: The judgment is affirmed. FINLEY, C.J., HILL, ROSELLINI, and HALE, JJ., concur. [*] Reported in 424 P.2d 1012. [] Judge Langenbach is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 4, § 2(a) (amendment 38), state constitution.