Court Opinion

ID: 9826154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:26:38.383662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:53.634649
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The respondents, Anderson and Rudisil, bought a tract of land and employed the appellant to resell it for them. *117The parties met and wrote out .a contract. While the contract was not signed, both respondents admit in evidence that the written contract expressed the agreement between them. They differed in their construction of the contract. The answer denies the plaintiff’s construction of the contract. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff incurred expense in preparation, for the sale to the amount of $1,076.76, and that the defendants owed them one-half thereof, to wit, $486.38. The defendant also denied the expense account. The defendants demurred to the complaint, setting up the statute of frauds. The plaintiff demurred to the plea of the statute of frauds. When the plaintiff called up his demurrer, the presiding Judge said, “Go ahead; I will pass on it later.” His Honor did not pass on the demurrer. The jury found for the defendants.
It seems that there was an upset price of $8,000. Before the sale was completed, the bidding stopped, and it was evident that the upset price could not be secured, and the sale was called off. One of the defendants said, “The sale called itself off.”
There is a clause in the so-called contract that reads (let the whole be reported) :
“The owner will pay company [plaintiff] no per cent, commission and fifty per cent, of all expenses incurred if a sale is made by the owner, or owner refuses to confirm sale■
The defendants say we were not requested to confirm a sale, and therefore we are not liable. The plaintiff claims that it would have been useless to demand of the defendants compliance when the price bid was not sufficient, and the plaintiff is not required by the law to do a useless thing.
The defendant Anderson testified:
Q. At the size of the bids made out there it would have been-foolish to ask you to confirm them?
A. At the price. Yes, sir.
*118Q. Pinson knew that you wouldn’t accept them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You agreed to call off the sale?
A. I guess that we agreed. I told you once that they quit bidding.
Q. It would have been foolish to have gone on with the sale ?
A. Yes, sir. If they had offered me $8,000 they would have gotten the land.
At first his Honor charged the jury, “I charge you that the law does not require a man to do a useless thing,” and then said, “Strike it out.” There are two exceptions, but only one question is raised. The striking out of the charge, after making it, was error, in that the jury may have thought that the plaintiff was bound to demand of the defendants that they comply with the bids that had been made before they could claim any part of the expense money.
The judgment is reversed.
Mr. Justice Watts concurs.