P. Almon, Judge. Action by McGraw & Garner, a partnership, against J. W. Cofield, in assumpsit. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The first count claims of defendant $62.40 due from him by account on or about September 14, 1916, for services rendered, defendant by plaintiff as real estate agents, which is just, due, and unpaid.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“The fact that the defendant could not convey the lands he employed the plaintiffs to sell without the voluntary signature and assent of his wife certainly does not avoid the defendant's obligation to pay the plaintiffs for their services in procuring a purchaser for the land at defendant's instance, and in accordance with the contract between the parties.”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1918-02-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1977
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2
[1 -3]
The fact that the defendant could not convey the lands he employed the plaintiffs to sell without the voluntary signature and assent of his wife certainly does .not avoid the defendant’s obligation to pay the plaintiffs for their services in procuring a purchaser for the land at defendant’s instance, and in accordance with the contract between the parties. The enforcement of this qbligation to pay in no way affects the defendant’s homestead rights by fastening a lien or incumbrance thereon. The defendant’s sixth plea was frivolous, and was properly stricken. Code 1907, § 5322.
¶3
[4]
The questions as to whether the defendant withdrew his proposition to sell the lands before the purchaser was procured, and as to whether the purchaser was acting in good faith and was ready, willing, and able to buy the lands, were of fact, and when the judgment of the trial court is accorded the weight of a verdict of a jury, we do not feel warranted in disturbing the finding made. Veid v. Roberts, 200 Ala. 576, 76 South. 934; Hatfield v. Riley, 199 Ala. 388, 74 South. 380; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52.
