Court Opinion

ID: 9833504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:46:03.581505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.587789
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Because the action of this court is final, we have carefully reviewed our former opinion and reconsidered the case. We can see no reason to change our views. We have not in any way found facts differing with those found by the court.
The appellant found a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy. Not being satisfied with the title, he did not refuse to go on, but was still willing to buy if the seller would execute a bond satisfactory to him. This was outside of the written contract. They could not agree on the bond, and this mode was abandoned. Neither the seller or proposed purchaser stood on their respective rights under the contract, but voluntarily rescinded the same. The broker had done his duty. He brought them together, their minds met. They made a satisfactory contract for themselves, and for reasons still satisfactory to themselves the seller allowed the proposed purchaser to withdraw his money, thereby to all intents and purposes conceding the contention of defect of title. He claimed his title was good, and refused to cure the alleged defects. His action must be treated, for the purposes of this suit, as though his title was “not good, and not made good in a reasonable time,” so as to authorize the withdrawal of the deposit by the purchaser under terms of the contract, which cannot, under thé circumstances, be a defense to appellant’s claim for commission.
Motion is overruled.