Brokers — Real estate — Commissions — Evidence — Admissibility.
In an action to recover commissions earned in the sale of real estate, the case is for the jury where the issue is one of fact as to whether the plaintiff had secured a purchaser, or whether the property had been sold through another broker. In such case, evidence that the defendant had paid another broker a commission, is immaterial, and, therefore, inadmissible.
Where a broker is duly authorized to sell property by a private sale and has commenced negotiations with the purchaser, the owner cannot, while such negotiations are pending, take it in his own hands and complete it, either at or below the price first limited, and then refuse to pay the commission.
If the terms of employment merely require the broker to find or introduce a purchaser within a certain time, he is legally entitled to remuneration if he induces the person to begin negotiations with his employer before the expiration of the period named, even though such negotiations are not consumated until after the time limit is reached.
Argued December 3, 1924.
PER CURIAM, February 27, 1925:
The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,500. After argument, a new trial was refused and judgment entered against the defendant. In an opinion filed by the trial judge, every pertinent question is reviewed and disposed of. Under the authorities cited, we see no reason for disturbing the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.