Aler v. Plowman

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from a judgment for the defendants entered upon a verdict of the court in a non-jury case, in a suit for real estate brokerage commissions of $600.00, claimed to have been earned when the plaintiff procured a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase the defendants’ home, 4400 Glenmore Avenue, at the agreed price of $12,000.00, but the defendants refused to execute the contract of sale. Elmer F. Plowman testified to a meeting at his home on April 18, 1946, with two agents of the plaintiff, named ⁶³³ Sinnott, who presented an exclusive listing agreement for sixty days, to sell the property for $12,000.00, with a further notation “will take $11,500.00”. Plowman signed this agreement and also signed a letter cancelling a previous listing agreement with another firm.

He testified that he told the agents his wife was unwilling to sell and would not sign any agreement, but they told him her name must be on the agreement. He then signed his own name and that of his wife, who was in an adjoining room. The property was listed and advertised, and a few days later, another agent of the plaintiff, Mr. Smith, took Mr. and Mrs. Kolbe to see the property. Mr. Plowman was there and permitted the inspection, but Mrs. Plowman stayed in another room.

Later, Smith went to the Plowmans with a signed contract, and deposit, for $11,500.00. He testified that both Mr. and Mrs. Plowman said that was not enough. Mrs. Plowman testified: “I told them how it came to be $11,500. I said I thought they should offer me $12,000.” She said that to her husband, but Smith was present at the time.

Smith persuaded the Kolbes to raise their offer, and went back with a signed contract for $12,000.00, and a check for a $500.00 deposit. Both the Plowmans declined to accept the offer. The court found from this evidence, virtually uncontradicted, that Mrs. Plowman was not liable because she did not authorize her husband to contract for her, and did not ratify his action, and further found that Mr. Plowman was not liable because the broker knew that the wife would not sell. We agree as to the wife, but not as to the husband.

A broker is entitled to commissions if he procures a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase at the agreed price, even though he may have no authority to complete the sale. Singer Construction Co. v. Goldsborough, 147 Md. 628, 638 , 128 A. 754 ; Cf. Neuland v. Millison, 188 Md. 594, 597 , 53 A. 2d 568, 572 . But he must prove employment or subsequent ratification.

Rogers v. Garrigues, 185 Md. 544 , 45 A. 2d 277 . There was ⁶³⁴ no evidence of authorization by the wife. Compare Vincenti v. Kammer, 159 Md. 523 , 56 A. 2d 688 . The only evidence of ratification is her failure to object to the showing of the house, which would seem to be insufficient (Adkins & Douglas Co. v. Webb, 160 Md. 571, 577 , 154 A. 259 ) and her statement that “they should offer me $12,000.” That statement falls somewhat short of a promise to accept such an offer, if made.

Although it shows knowledge of the terms of the agreement, we cannot say that it establishes an approval on her part of her husband’s action in signing her name to the listing