TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Crampton v. Irwin

Crampton v. Irwin, 203 P. 672 (Colo. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Colorado · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 9, 1922
Docket
No. 9977
Judges
Allen
Citations
203 P. 67271 Colo. 11922 Colo. LEXIS 314
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
1. Brokers — Beal Estate — Commission. When a sale does not actually take place, the broker cannot recover commissions unless he shows that he procured and produced to his principal a person ready, willing and able to purchase the property upon the terms and conditions under 'which he was authorized to negotiate the sale. The ability of the prospective purchaser to purchase is an essential element to be pleaded and established.
Summary
Action by real estate broker for commission. Judgment for plaintiff. Error to the District Court of Phillips County, Hon. L. C. Stephenson, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Allen

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Allen

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission. The'cause was tried to the court without a jury. Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

The plaintiff in error, defendant below, asserts in his brief as follows:

“The complaint nowhere alleges that the prospective purchaser wás ready, able and willing to purchase, and the testimony introduced entirely omits all proof on the question of the ability of the prospective purchaser to purchase.”

We have read the abstract, and it sustains the foregoing proposition. The instant case is controlled by the rule stated in Colburn v. Seymour, 32 Colo. 430 , 76 Pac. 1058 , 2 Ann. Cas. 182, as follows:

“* * * When a sale does not actually take place, * * * he (the broker) cannot recover commissions unless he shows that he procured and produced to his principal a person ready, willing and able to purchase the property upon the terms and conditions under which he was authorized to negotiate a sale.”

The foregoing rule was applied in Fox v. Denargo Land Co., 37 Colo. 203 , 86 Pac. 344 , where recovery was denied because the proof failed “to establish the financial ability” of the prospective purchaser to comply with the terms of the proposed contract.

*3 There are no allegations in the complaint, nor is there any showing in the evidence, rendering unnecessary the proof of the financial ability of the prospective purchaser. The rule above stated therefore controls. See also Wagner v. Norris, 39 Colo. 106 , 88 Pac. 973 ; 9 C. J. 595.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the action.

Mr. Justice Teller, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice Scott, and Mr. Justice Denison concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1948: 119482026peak 1948 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jacobs v. Rothschild1948 OK 31, 197 P.2d 951 · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Jacobs v. Rothschild1948 OK 31, 197 P.2d 951 · Dissent

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Colburn v. Seymour, 32 Colo. 430 (1904) 17
Fox v. Denargo Land Co., 37 Colo. 203 (1906) 6
Wagner v. Norris, 39 Colo. 106 (1907) 1

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