← Cases

Waterman v. Boltinghouse

82 Cal. 659 Court Department Two Decision date 1890-01-31 Docket No. 13377 English

Delivered by Thornton, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 659
[No. 13377.
Department Two
January 31, 1890.]
JAMES A. WATERMAN, Appellant, v. F. M. BOLTINGHOUSE, Respondent.

Headnote

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT — BROKERAGE — EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL REALTY — Sale by Principal —-Commissions. —An agent or broker to whom is given the exclusive right, for a certain period, to sell a tract of land belonging to another, cannot recover his commissions when the owner sells the land during this period, unless he has produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy on the terms specified in his contract of employment.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Meux & Edwards, for Appellant.
E. C. Winchell, and Wharton & Short, for Respondent.

This is an action by plaintiff to recover commissions for an alleged sale of land. He never produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy on the terms of his employer, the defendant. He cannot, therefore, recover. (Dolan v. Scanlan, 57 Cal. 261 ; Moses v. Bierling, 31 N. Y. 462 ; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378 ; 22 Am. Rep. 441 .)

Here the plaintiff had the exclusive right to sell for a term ending January 1, 1889, and the defendant, during this period, himself effected a sale. Though the plaintiff had the right to sell, to the exclusion of his employer, still he cannot recover his commissions unless he has produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy as above stated. This is expressly held, and correctly held, in Moses v. Bierling, supra, which is a case similar to this.

The plaintiff argues this case as if it was a suit to recover damages for defendant’s breach of contract. The complaint does not set forth any such action, but one to recover the compensation agreed to be paid on a sale.

There is no error.

Judgment affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cases cited