Black v. Snook
Black v. Snook
Opinion of the Court
We have examined the several assignments of error and are of opinion that they are without merit. The plaintiff was not a real estate broker in contemplation of the act of assembly requiring him to have a license authorizing him to sell real estate before he could recover for his services in this case. The plaintiff alleged as the basis of his right to recover, a contract whereby the defendant agreed to pay him a certain sum if he would find a purchaser for the defendant’s property, and that he did secure a purchaser. 'The defendant admitted substantially the agree.ment as claimed by the plaintiff, but averred, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, that the latter had not the exclusive right to dispose of the property, and that the defendant sold it. The question at issue, therefore, was one of fact, and having been properly submitted to the jury, the judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Broker—Beal estate broker—Commissions—Licenses. A person who sells particular real estate under a special contract, and who does not hold himself out to the world as a real estate broker, may recover for his services, although he may have no license authorizing him to sell real estate. In an action to recover for services in selling real estate it appeared that the plaintiff had no license as a real estate broker. He alleged as the basis of his right to recover a contract whereby the defendant agreed to pay him a certain sum if he would find a purchaser for the defendant’s property, and that he did secure a purchaser. The defendant admitted substantially the agreement as claimed by the plaintiff but averred, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, that the latter had not the exclusive right to dispose of the property, and that the defendant sold it. Held, that the case was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.