Court Opinion

ID: 6432685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:09:41.410838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:52:15.725662
License: Public Domain

Rugg, C. J.
This is an action to recover for services as a real estate broker. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to sell certain real estate, and he procured a purchaser who executed a contract for the sale of it to him by the defendant. Simultaneously with this contract the following agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant:
"It is agreed by and between Ewen A. Clark, broker, and Free-land E. Hovey, owner, that concerning the agreement for sale of property 2 and 6 Cambridge Street, Boston, from Hovey to Jeremiah Green, for the sum of $60,000 that said Clark agrees to accept the sum of $500 in full payment of commission and for his full compensation in the matter, and said Hovey agrees to pay said sum.
“It is further agreed by both parties that this $500 shall not be *487paid from the first $5,000 paid Hovey, of which $500 has been paid to-day, but shall be paid by Hovey to Clark from the first $500 received by Hovey from Green after the $5,000 has been paid. In other words, Clark will not make any claim for commission unless Hovey receives more than $5,000 in cash from the sale.”
The contract for sale was never carried out because the defendant could not give a good title by reason of certain restrictions. The question is whether, under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to his commission.
The rights of the parties depend upon the terms of their agreement, which is in writing and not ambiguous. It fixes the price which the plaintiff was to receive. It stipulates in unequivocal words that the compensation shall not be paid by the defendant until after he has received $5,000 on account of the sale. As matter of construction, this means that it is a condition to his being able to recover any commission that the defendant shall have received $5,000 in cash from the sale. Its effect is not, as in some of the cases relied on by the plaintiff, to fix a time beyond which the broker shall not be called upon to wait for his pay, but it establishes a moment before the arrival of which he cannot ask for his compensation. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the employer of the broker has failed through any volition of his own to carry out the contract.
The written agreement between the parties supersedes the ordinary rule that the broker has earned his commission when he has procured the execution of a valid agreement for sale.
It follows that the judgment of the lower court was wrong. In accordance with St. 1913, c. 716, § 2, the entry may be

Judgment for the defendant.