TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tucker v. Rogers

Tucker v. Rogers.

Tucker v. Rogers, 134 So. 388 (La. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 30, 1931
Docket
No. 28255.
Judges
Paul, O'Niell
Citations
134 So. 388172 La. 4451931 La. LEXIS 1706

Opinion of the Court — Paul

ST. PAUL, J.

Defendant authorized one S. J. Derbes, a real estate broker, to sell for his account ten certain lots of ground for a net price of $4,-500 and retain all above that amount for his commission.

Derbes approached plaintiff, another real estate broker, and arranged to sell him the lots for $4,750. It was agreed, however, that plaintiff and Derbes were to split the commission of $250. ' Thereupon plaintiff addresses to himself as “Selling Agent” an offer to purchase the property, signed by himself as “Agent for client, Buyer”; which offer he, “Selling Agent,” submitted to Derbes, as “Listing Agent,” and was accepted by defendant as “Owner.”

When defendant learned that plaintiff was not purchasing for “a client,” but for himself, defendant repudiated the contract and sold the property to another person. Whereupon plaintiff sued defendant for damages equal to the price at which defendant had promised to sell and that at which plaintiff could have sold.

The trial judge rejected plaintiff’s demand, and plaintiff appeals.

We think the judgment appealed from is correct. The promise of sale never was completed. The offer of sale was to all intents and purposes made to Derbes as “Listing Agent,” and offered to place in his hands one-tenth of the purchase price, or $475. When plaintiff withheld out of this deposit, as he did, one-half the commission (or $125), he deposited with Derbes only $350, or less than the 10 per cent, of the purchase price. Hence the contract was not completed. State ex rel. Bond v. Register of Conveyances, 162 La. 362 , 110 So. 559 . ' Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

O’NIELL, O. J., dissents.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1940: 11951: 11952: 11955: 219402026peak 1955 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Samuelson v. Bosk53 So. 2d 239 (La. 1951)
  2. In re Industrial Homestead Ass'n198 So. 528 (La. Ct. App. 1940)
  3. Bayon v. Pettingill77 So. 2d 202 (La. Ct. App. 1955)
  4. Dane & Northrop v. Rittiner78 So. 2d 178 (La. 1955)
  5. Reuther v. Bergeron59 So. 2d 392 (La. Ct. App. 1952)

Most recent

  1. Dane & Northrop v. Rittiner78 So. 2d 178 (La. 1955)
  2. Bayon v. Pettingill77 So. 2d 202 (La. Ct. App. 1955)
  3. Reuther v. Bergeron59 So. 2d 392 (La. Ct. App. 1952)
  4. Samuelson v. Bosk53 So. 2d 239 (La. 1951)
  5. In re Industrial Homestead Ass'n198 So. 528 (La. Ct. App. 1940)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. Bond v. Register of Conveyances, 110 So. 559 (La. 1926) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list