Loyacano v. Succession of Thompson
Loyacano v. Succession of Thompson
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff sought by his suit to recover of the
It appears that the plaintiff was engaged by the deceased to. secure for her a purchaser of her property situated in Mechan-ickhan, in the Parish óf Jefferson at the price of $3,500 and agreed, if such purchaser was found who would buy the property at that sum, she would pay plaintiff $500.00 for his services in the matter.
Lcyancano subsequently found such a purchaser in the person of one Vincent Bocheta, whom he brought to deceased. After negotiating for some time, deceased agreed to sell to Bocheta the property which she had entrusted Loyacano with the sale of, and an adjoining lot, all for the sum of $4000.00. Thereupon the following document was completed but signed alone by the deceased, and the subscribing witnesses:
“Gretna, La., Jany. 13th, 1906.
“Received from Vincent Bocheta the sum of $500.00 on ac*347 count of the purchase price of $4000, for which I give to the said Vincent Bocheta the right and privilege to purchase from me, within thirty days from date hereof, the property situate dat the corner of Coppernichs Avenue and Third Street, in the village of Mechanickhan, this Parish and Stale, now occupied by John Loyacano as a fruit stand, measuring fifty feet, more or less, fifty f^et, more or less, by a depth of one hundred and twenty-five feet, the said property being more fully described as commencing on the north side of the butcher shop which is located at, on or near said property, and running towards Third Street fifty feet, more or less, by a depth of one hundred and twenty-five feet.
Upon the payment to me by the said 'Vincent Bocheta of the ■balance of said purchase price within the time above specified, I hereby bind myself and my heirs or assigns to transfer said property to the said Vincent Blocheta, free of all liens, privileges ■or incumbrances whatsoever. The act of sale to be passed before John R. Langridge, notary public, at expense of pu-chasen”
“The consideration of the above sale to be $4000 cash. The figure one erased and the figure five inserted instead.
“Thus done and signed in presence of subscribing witnesses, I being unable to write, and made my mark instead.
(Signed) Juliette Ann X (her mark) Thompson.
“Witnesses:
John Pfeiffer,
Jacob Karl.”
Bocheta then and there paid the $500.00, but at no time thereafter and within the period of thirty days accorded him by the option supra did he come forward to take title and pay the balance of the stipulated price. On the contrary he deliberately and voluntarily resiled from his engagement to take the property, and, as he testified on the trial of the cause he changed his mind fifteen days after the execution of the above document and concluded that he would not take the property at the price stated, prefering to forfeit the $500.00 he had put up. The deceased, on the contrary, was anxious to complete the transaction and make the sale and would have carried out her written promise to sell at any time within the stipulated period, had
Some three months after the failure and refusal of Bocheta to avail himself of the option and his abandonment of the price paid for the option, he and his wife entered into a new, separate and distinct negotiation looking to the purchase by them, of the property in question and without the intervention or assistance of plaintiff. The result of this latter negotiation was that the deceased sold them the entire two properties for the sum of $2,800.00 cash, thus realizing to the vendor the sum of $3)300) including the $500.00, which had been previously forfeited to her.
It may not be doubted that a broker who is employed to negotiate a sale fully performs his duty when he has- procured a purchaser ready and able to buy upon the term's stipulated by his principal when the broker’s services were engaged and tnat, whether a sale is effected or not as the result of the refusal and inability of the principal to complete the contract, he is entitled to his commission. Leweston vs. Landreaux 6 A. 26, Lestrade vs. Perrera 6 A. 398; Hornbeck vs. Gilmer 110 La. 507; Adams Bros. vs. Oteri 36 A. 386; Gravely vs. Ice etc. Co. 47 A. 389; Slattery vs. Hussy (Nov. 19, 1906.) 4 Court of Appeal, not yet reported; 57 Cal. 24; A. & E. Eny. of Law Vol. 4-2 Ed. P. 972; 12 Daly (N. Y.) 6; 18 Mo. App. 639; 63 Ill. Opp. 109.
But where, as in the instant cause, the proposed purchaser is not ready and willing¿0 buy on the terms thus proposed and the sale is not made solely on account of his refusal to take the property, it is equally clear that the commissions have not been earned.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.