Young v. Metcalf Land Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Cass -county; Chas. A. Pollock, J. Action by James C. Young against the Metcalf Land Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Where no terms are fixed by contract, the broker is to submit offers for his employer’s approval; the broker is not entitled to his commission until his employer accepts the offer. 23 Am. & Eng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Cass -county; Chas. A. Pollock, J. Action by James C. Young against the Metcalf Land Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Where no terms are fixed by contract, the broker is to submit offers for his employer’s approval; the broker is not entitled to his commission until his employer accepts the offer. 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. -of Law (2nd.) 921; Sawyer v. Bowman-, 59 N. W. 27; Goin v. Hess, 71 N. W. 218; Berry v. Tweed, -61 N. W. 858 ; Kiam v. Turner, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 417. A broker must submit a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase on…
1DissentEllsworth, J.
I cannot agree with the construction 'placed by my Associates upon the contract involved in the case at bar to the effect that respondent had the sole right to fix the selling price of the lands subject only to the condition that the price should not be less than the value fixed by the first appraisement. The clause, “and it is distinctly understood that, before any sale shall be binding upon the said Metcalf Land Company, the contract shall be approved and terms of payment thereof accepted by the said Metcalf Land Company,” is obviously intended as a limitation of the' power granted to Young…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hudson v. ArcherSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896