Snedker v. Baltimore Brick Co.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a judgment for the appellee for costs, in an action to recover broker’s commissions of $2,057.11, tried by the court without a jury. The appellant poses two questions, whether he was the procuring cause of the sales in question, and whether his authority and agency had terminated prior to the sales. There is little dispute as to the facts.

The Baltimore Brick Company, in the course of its manufacturing operations, had acquired numerous parcels of “worked out” land which it was holding for sale, either directly or through brokers, but at no time under exclusive listing contracts. In the latter part of 1948 the appéllant, a real estate broker, approached Mr. Brown, its president, stating that he had a client interested in buying a forty-acre tract on Washington Boulevard near Gable Avenue. Brown gave him a price of $2,500 per ⁵⁰¹ acre, and suggested that thé Company had another tract for sale in the 2300 block on Washington Boulevard, containing about forty-five acres at the same price. Snedker testified that Brown told him the company would pay a five per cent commission if he sold it.

Brown testified that nothing was said about commissions, but it was “generally understood, in the event any one sold land, commission would be paid to him”. Five per cent is the usual commission. Snedker did not contend that he was given an exclusive listing. Snedker, in company with Brown, showed the forty-five-acre tract to his client, Mr. Julio, a developer.

The tract was rough and ungraded, and Julio said he did not want to buy the entire tract, since he did not know “how the development would work out”. He finally agreed to buy 5.4 acres at $2,500 per acre, a contract of sale was signed on January 12, 1949, settlement was made on May 3, 1949, and Snedker received a five per cent commission on the amount paid from the Company. Snedker testified that Brown told Julio that “he would not sell the remainder of the tract to anyone without first giving Julio a chance to buy it”. The appellant admits that this verbal statement was not legally binding as an option.

Brown testified he told Julio “if we had any inquiry on the remainder of the land, we would discuss the matter with him first, inasmuch as he had pioneered the property”. After Julio had built some houses on the tract he purchased, there were extended negotiations between Brown and Julio as to the purchase of more acreage. Julio wanted a reduction in the quoted price, because of the necessity for grading. Contracts for the sale of 5.9 acres at $2,300 an acre, and 2.5 acres at $2,500 per acre were executed on January 28, 1950, with purchase money mortgages instead of cash.

Snedker took no part in these negotiations. His only contact with either Julio or Brown prior to the second sale, was a telephone call to Brown (denied by Brown) in which Snedker said he told Brown he had another client who might be ⁵⁰² interested in buying the property. He says Brown told him he was holding it for Julio. Snedker made no claim for commissions at that time.

On or about February 1, 1950 Snedker called at the Company’s office and demanded commissions on the consummated sale, which were refused. Thereafter,