Legal Opinion

Ross v. Perry

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 16, 1972No. 74PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHARP,' Justice.

The question presented is: What effect did the unanticipated condemnation of defendant’s property have upon the right of Ross’ successor to continue to receive the commissions stipulated in defendant’s letter of 20 September 1943 to Ross?

The rule is that a real estate broker, employed by the owner to sell or lease designated property, is entitled to his commission when he negotiates a sale or lease within the terms of his authority; and his right is not affected if the principal voluntarily cancels the contract which the broker negotiated. Bonn v. Summers, 249 N.C. 357, 106…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Jones v. Palace Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  2. Kirkman v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. Dallas Dome Wyoming Oil Fields Co. v. BrooderWyoming Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Lind v. HueneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Barham v. DavenportSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Astor v. Boulos Co., Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982
  2. Dep't of Transp. v. Adams Outdoor Advert. of Charlotte Ltd. P'shipSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2017
  3. Tryon Realty Co. of New Bern, Inc. v. HardisonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Greene v. MurdockCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Century 21, Trent Properties, Ltd. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API