Reams v. Wilson

J.

The nncontradicted testimony of the plain-0. December, 1906, the defendant placed in his 5 of property to sell at $1,400, with a stipulation of commissions the plaintiff was to have all he ¡r $1,400, and that it was agreed further between le defendant would not dispose of the property ng the plaintiff notice; that in February the plain-property for $1,500 to a party “ready, able and * iay for it, but, on reporting the sale to defendant, he latter had sold the property, 29 January, 1907, tarty for $1,350, without giving the plaintiff any above evidence the court charged that the defend-ight to sell the land and that “the plaintiff would-tied "to recover $100 — that is, the difference be-'$jl,i00 and $1,500 — but that he would be entitled to the quantum meruit — i.

e., such compensation as the jury may find he is entitled to recover for the services he rendered the defendant in attempting to sell the land between the date of the contract and the time (29 January) when the defendant sold it.”

This was erroneous. There being a valid express contract, there is no place for recovery on a quantum meruit.

The *306 plaintiff was entitled to recover tbe stipulated compensation (here $100), if the jury believed the evidence.

Reed v. Reed, 82 Pa. St., 420;

Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal., 306 ;

Doty v. Miller, 43 Barb., 529 ;

Bailey v. Chapman, 41 Mo., 537 ;

Monroe v. Snow, 131 Ill., 136 , and numerous cases collected in notes to Breckenridge v. Claridge, 43 L. R. A., 593.

Notice of revocation must be given by the principal to the agent. Mechera Agency, sec. 226. Besides, in this case an express agreement that notice should be given is shown.

If there had been .no agreement as to the compensation the plaintiff could have recovered on a quantum meruit for the value of his services in making sale at the price he did, and not merely the value of services in trying to make sale up to 29 January, when the defendant, unknown to plaintiff, actually made sale — -the rule which his Honor laid down. That the vendee of the plaintiff was “ready, able and willing” to comply is fully shown by the fact that the plaintiff, on defendant’s failure to comply, bought .the land for his vendee from defendant’s vendee for $1,500.

Error.