Boysen v. Frink
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court; George M. Chapline, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Boysen was a real estate dealer, and engaged Frink to work for him in the sales of land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court; George M. Chapline, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Boysen was a real estate dealer, and engaged Frink to work for him in the sales of land. A written contract existed between them, the pertinent part of it being as follows: “Mr. L. M. Frink, Colfax, 111. “Hereby confirming your appointment as agent for the sale of my lands in Arkansas, I agree to pay you a commission of seventy-five (75) cents per acre for every acre of land sold by me to customers sent or bought by you or your subagents, said commission to be paid you, one-half when one-third of purchase…
1Opinion of the Court
Hill, C. J.,
(after stating the facts.) It is the duty of the broker to furnish a customer able and willing, to comply with the proposed sale before he is entitled to commission when the commission is conditioned on payment of price. Rapalje on Real Estate Brokers, § § 6i, 62.
To be sure that his purchasers were responsible, Boysen stipulated in the contract with his agent that no part’ of the commission should be paid until one-third of the purchase price was paid; then one-half of the commission became due, and the remainder when one-half of the purchase price was paid. Now, Boysen could not,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Ballas v. Lake Weir Light & Water Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1930
- Moore v. IrwinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Columbia Realty Investment Co. v. Alameda Land Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Pinkerton v. HudsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Dallas Dome Wyoming Oil Fields Co. v. BrooderWyoming Supreme Court · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.