Court Opinion

ID: 4730917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 02:55:40.535748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:08:02.561140
License: Public Domain

Dunbar, C. J.
(dissenting) — I concur in what is said above by Judge Fullerton. It is manifest, from the whole written correspondence and from the testimony, that the parties understood each other thoroughly. The statute was enacted for a beneficent purpose, viz., to protect landowners against dishonest real estate brokers. But, unfortunately, there are also dishonest real estate owners who are quick to take advantage of real estate brokers, and the strict construction placed upon the statute by the majority in this case has enabled the landowner, the respondent in this case, to obtain the services of the appellants at her request, without compensation; and after obtaining the price .which she desired for her land, by reason of the fact that she availed herself of their services, she pockets the proceeds, and coolly informs them that she will not pay them for their services because the contract was not in writing. The two written exhibits, the one signed, and the other unsigned, but plainly referred to in the written statement which is signed, convince me that an injustice has been done in this ease, which was never contemplated by the law.