Buchholz v. Gorsuch

⁶⁴ Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the appellee’s recovery of commissions, on account of the sale of certain real estate of the appellants, in Baltimore County, is the principal subject of inquiry presented by this appeal. There was testimony from which, though contradicted in important particulars, the jury could find: that the appellants authorized the appellee, who is a real estate broker, to list their property for sale on a five per cent, commission basis; that he advertised it in the Baltimore Sun, and after various efforts to sell it, he brought the property to. the attention of the persons who subsequently became the purchasers, and had them conveyed in his automobile to inspect the premises; that he gave them, the appellants’ address in Baltimore and informed them as to the price at which the property was then offered; that a month or two later the persons who after-wards bought the property from the appellants inquired of them by telephone as to the price, through a friend and neighbor, who had advised them to purchase it, and they learned that a reduction in the price previously asked would not he considered; that about three months after the appellee had enlisted the interest of the eventual purchasers; an offer was made by them to the appellants which led to a counter proposal and a final agreement of sale for $8,300; that during the interview at which the sale was effected the appellants were informed by the purchasers that the appellee had shown them the property, and one of the appellants, in the presence of the other, referred to the necessity of paying the appellee a commission as a reason for not selling it for a lower price. The agreement of sale was consummated by the payment of the purchase price and the conveyance of the property.

Tt is provided by statute (Code, art. 2, sec. 17), that if a broker “employed to sell” real or leasehold property, “procures in good faith a purchaser, * * * and the person so procured is accepted as such by the employer, and enters into a valid, binding and enforceable written contract of sale * * *, in terms acceptable to the employer, and such contract is ⁶⁵ accepted by the employer and signed by him, the broker shall be deemed to have earned the customary or agreed oommisision, as the case may be, whether or not the' contract entered into be actually into effect, unless the performance of such contract be prevented, hindered or delayed by any act of the broker.” It is not disputed that the evidence, while in conflict, would have justified the submission to the jury of the question as to the appellee’s employment by the appellants: to sell their property, and the uncontradicted testimony proves that the appellants, upon terms' satisfactory to themselves, accepted as purchasers, and v'alidly contracted with, the persons who had become interested in the property at the appellee’s instance. But it is. contended that -the evidence is not legally sufficient to show that the appellee “procured” the purchaser within the intent of the law. That prerequisite to recovery is satisfied if the testimony admits of the. inference that the sale was. accomplished as a result, of the .appellee’s action in discovering the purchasers, showing them the property, and referring them to the appellants, for further negotiations.. The fact that the sale was effected by direct agreement of tbe vendors aud vendees does not disentitle the appellee to commissions if his efforts, may fairly be regarded .as the procuring cause of that result.

Such a, question is ordinarily left to the jury for decision. It is. not to be withdrawn from their1 consideration unless the evidence admits of no reasonable inference that the agreement of sale was' tho result of the broker’s service. The principles we have stated have been repeatedly applied by this Court. Keener v. Harrod, 2 Md. 63 ; Jones v. Adler, 34 Md. 440 ; Blake v. Stump, 73 Md. 160; Walker v. Baldwin, 106 Md. 634 ; Martien v. Baltimore, 109 Md. 260 ; Way v. Turner, 127 Md. 327 ; North Ave.

Casino