Court Opinion

ID: 9831561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:11:16.010794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.811376
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After much consideration of the appellant’s motion for rehearing and the answer thereto, in the light of such additional authorities as we have been able to find, we conclude that we erred in our holding to the effect that the court was correct in instructing a verdict for appellee. In 4 R. C. L. p. 320, § 58, we find the following:
“The general rule deducible from the decisions upon the question would seem to be that. *533if there is nothing peculiar in the contract of employment, it is not necessary that the broker should negotiate the sale, when he has found, or procured, or if he has introduced, or given the name of, a purchaser 'who is able, ready, and willing to purchase the property upon the terms named by the principal, and the principal has entered into negotiations with such purchaser, and concluded a sale with him; and in such cases the broker ,has performed his contract and is entitled to his commissions.”
This statement is copied from the note on pages 612, 613, 44 L. R. A., where many cases are cited.
[2, 3] We conclude that we placed too much stress upon the fact that the agent did not communicate with Carlton Adams, and did not bring him to Beakley, or cause him to communicate with Beakley. We conclude that there may be a case where the agent can be said to be the procuring cause, when he communicates only with his principal, and that there is evidence in this case tending to show that the information given by Barnes to Beakley was the primary, proximate, and procuring cause of the consummation of the trade.
We therefore grant the motion for rehearing, set aside our former Judgment, and enter judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the cause.