{ "id": 8618494, "name": "FRANK F. JONES v. PALACE REALTY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Palace Realty Co.", "decision_date": "1946-05-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "303", "last_page": "307", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "226 N.C. 303" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "48 S. E., 871", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Va., 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 1855359 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/103/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 Miss., 823", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 754345 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/123/0823-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S. W., 1043", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Tex. Civ. App., 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex. Civ. App.", "case_ids": [ 277071 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex-civ-app/21/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 P., 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Cal., 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 1971552 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/119/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 A., 196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 N. J. L., 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 216461 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/83/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 P., 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Cal. App., 759", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App.", "case_ids": [ 4452797 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app/36/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 A., 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 Pa., 3", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1092062 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/284/0003-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 A. L. R., 1386", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 A., 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 R. I., 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "R.I.", "case_ids": [ 4905983 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ri/48/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 P., 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 Wash., 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.,", "case_ids": [ 821859 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/153/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 Atl., 205", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 N. J. L., 743", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 216437 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/83/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 A. L. R., 918", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N. E., 436", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N. Y., 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 1994799 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/255/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 A. L. R., 1390", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N. C., 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631678 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S. E., 188", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "case_ids": [ 1960776 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/109/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N. C., 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662003 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S. E., 497", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N. C., 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270557 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N. C., 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630614 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S. E., 857", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623489 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 S. E., 427", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N. C., 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271903 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/146/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S. E., 707", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N. C., 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613668 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S. E., 791", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11251994 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 N. C., 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621349 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272225 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N. C., 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8632095 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 S. E., 312", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628386 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. E., 454", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N. Y., 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 1961363 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/225/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 A. L. R., 926", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N. C., 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605814 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 760", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618562 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0760-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 A. L. R., 280", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 Utah, 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Utah", "case_ids": [ 8869677 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/utah/58/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 A. L. R., 289", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 626, "char_count": 10673, "ocr_confidence": 0.479, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3032439617520246e-06, "percentile": 0.9894291134347987 }, "sha256": "a67e947849a9cb9ecf6466efb6e75edbcd4d12bd54227cb4ef0df2d902104e4c", "simhash": "1:1b3f77a3410ade34", "word_count": 1939 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:42.041183+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "FRANK F. JONES v. PALACE REALTY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe question for decision is whether the promise to pay the plaintiff\u2019s commission, as set out in the letter of 1 September, 1944, from Palace Eealty Company to TJ. A. Zimmerman, binds the defendant absolutely or conditionally. The trial court interpreted the stipulation as a promise to pay plaintiff\u2019s commission \u201cwhen\u201d- \u2014 and only when\u2014 \u201cthe deal is closed up,\u201d and then \u201cout of the sale price of the property.\u201d The view seems to accord with the terms of the agreement as prepared by the plaintiff. Anno. 20 A. L. R., 289.\nIt will be noted the judgment of nonsuit is grounded on the special contract, prepared by plaintiff, where the sale failed because of the inability of the purchaser procured by the broker to complete it. Watson v. Odell, 58 Utah, 276, 198 Pac., 772, 20 A. L. R., 280. The case is not like the usual broker\u2019s action where a responsible purchaser is procured by his efforts under a general contract, express or implied. White v. Pleasants, 225 N. C., 760; Lindsey v. Speight, 224 N. C., 453, 31 S. E. (2d), 371; Anno. 73 A. L. R., 926. Nor is it an instance where the sale failed of consummation because of some default on the part of the owner. Colvin v. Post Mtg. & Land Co., 225 N. Y., 510, 122 N. E., 454.\nThe heart of a contract is the intention of the parties. Bank v. Page, 206 N. C., 18, 173 S. E., 312; 12 Am. Jur., 760. This intention is to be gathered from the entire instrument, viewing it from its four corners. Krites v. Plott, 222 N. C., 679, 24 S. E. (2d), 531; Simmons v. Groom, 167 N. C., 271, 83 S. E., 471; Whitley v. Arenson, 219 N. C., 121, 12 S. E. (2d), 906. If there be no dispute in respect of the terms of the contract, and they are plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction. The contract is to be interpreted as written. Potato Co. v. Jenette, 172 N. C., 1, 89 S. E., 791. \u201cIf the words employed are capable of more than one meaning, the meaning to be given is that which it is apparent the parties intended them to have.\u201d King v. Davis, 190 N. C., 737, 130 S. E., 707. It is also a rule of construction that an ambiguity in a written contract is to be inclined against the party who prepared the writing. Wilkie v. Ins. Co., 146 N. C., 513, 60 S. E., 427. Then, too, the ante litem moiam practical interpretation of the parties is a safe guide in the interpretation of contracts. Cole v. Fibre Co., 200 N. C., 484, 157 S. E., 857. Tbe present case stands or falls on tbe proper construction of tbe written agreement between tbe parties. Jones v. Casstevens, 222 N. C., 411, 23 S. E. (2d), 303.\nTbe plaintiff takes tbe position that when be procured a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy tbe property on terms satisfactory to tbe owner and a binding contract of sale was entered into, \u201cbis commission\u201d was thereupon earned, and tbe stipulation that it should be paid \u201cwhen tbe deal is closed up\u201d has reference to tbe time of payment rather than to tbe happening of an event upon which its payment would depend. Crowell v. Parker, 171 N. C., 392, 88 S. E., 497; S. c., 175 N. C., 717, 95 S. E., 188; Harrison v. Brown, 222 N. C., 610, 27 S. E. (2d), 470; Anno. 51 A. L. R., 1390. To this tbe defendant replies, \u201csuch might have been tbe contract, but it is not so nominated in tbe special agreement.\u201d\nIt can make no difference whether tbe event be called a contingency or tbe time of performance. Certainly, under either construction, tbe result would be tbe same; since, if tbe event does not befall, or a time coincident with tbe happening of tbe event does not arrive, in neither case may performance be exacted. Nor will it do to say that a promise to pay \u201cwhen tbe deal is closed up\u201d is a promise to pay when it ought to be closed up according to tbe terms of tbe contract. Such is not the meaning of tbe words used. It is tbe event itself, and not tbe date of its expected or contemplated happening, that makes tbe promise to pay performable. Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N. Y., 156, 174 N. E., 436, 73 A. L. R., 918.\nTbe weight of authority is to tbe effect that tbe use of such words as \u201cwhen,\u201d \u201cafter,\u201d \u201cas soon as,\u201d and tbe like, gives clear indication that a promise is not to be performed except upon tbe happening of a stated event. 12 Am. Jur., 849. It has been held that promises to pay commissions to brokers, for tbe procurement of sales of real estate, are conditional when expressed to be performable \u201con tbe day of passing title\u201d (Leschziner v. Bouman, 83 N. J. L., 743, 85 Atl., 205); \u201cwhen tbe sale is completed\u201d (Sams v. Olympia Holding Co., 153 Wash., 254, 279 P., 575); \u201cupon delivery of tbe deed and payment of tbe consideration\u201d (Tarbell v. Bomes, 48 R. I., 86, 135 A., 604, 51 A. L. R., 1386); \u201cat settlement\u201d of total consideration (Simon v. Myers, 284 Pa., 3, 130 A., 256); \u201cwhen tbe sale is consummated\u201d (Alison v. Chapman, 36 Cal. App., 759, 173 P., 389); \u201cat tbe date of passing title\u201d (Baum v. Goldblatt, 81 Pa. Supr. Ct., 233); \u201cat tbe time of tbe consummation\u201d of tbe sale (Morse v. Conley, 83 N. J. L., 416, 85 A., 196); \u201cout of tbe first money received\u201d from tbe sale (Lindley v. Fay, 119 Cal., 239, 51 P., 333); \u201cout of tbe proceeds of said deal\u201d (Kiam v. Turner, 21 Tex. Civ. App., 417, 52 S. W., 1043); \u201c2% per cent, of tbe amount you receive\u201d from tbe sale (Lee v. Greenwood Agency Co., 123 Miss., 823, 86 So., 449); \u201cout of tbe payments as made\u201d (Murray v. Rickard, 103 Va., 132, 48 S. E., 871); and in tbe case at bar tbe broker\u2019s commission is payable \u201cwhen tbe deal is closed up,\u201d and tben \u201cout of tbe sale price of the property.\u201d\n\u201cA commission agent employed to negotiate a sale upon tbe terms that be is to be paid a commission on tbe amount of purchase money, or on tbe happening of a certain event, will not be entitled to any commissions until tbe purchase money has been received or tbe event has happened, unless there has been fraudulent delay or willful neglect on tbe part of tbe employer.\u201d 2 Addison on Contracts, sec. 925.\nIt is alleged in tbe instant complaint that tbe failure to close tbe deal was due to tbe defendant\u2019s own default. However, tbe evidence adduced on tbe bearing is insufficient to support tbe allegation. Tbe question of waiver was also advanced by tbe plaintiff, but this, too, is unsupported by tbe record. Hence, tested by tbe weight of authority and our own decisions, it would seem that we have here a promise to pay plaintiff\u2019s commission upon a condition which has not been fulfilled and \u201cout of tbe sale price of tbe property\u201d which has not been received because of tbe inability of tbe purchaser to comply with bis contract. Tbe result is an affirmance of tbe judgment of nonsuit.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Taliaferro & Clarkson and Joseph W. Grier, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.", "Robinson & Jones for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FRANK F. JONES v. PALACE REALTY COMPANY.\n(Filed 1 May, 1946.)\n1. Contracts \u00a7 8\u2014\nIf there be no dispute in respect of the terms of a contract, and they are plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction. The contract is to be interpreted as written.\n2. Same\u2014\nIf the words employed in a contract are capable of more than one meaning, the meaning to be given is that which it is apparent the parties intended them to have, and the practical interpretation of the agreement by the parties ante litem motam will control.\n3. Same\u2014\nAn ambiguity in a written contract is to be inclined against the party who prepared the writing.\n4. Contracts \u00a7\u00a7 10, lib\u2014\nThe general rule is to the effect that the rise of such words as \u201cwhen,-\u201d \u201cafter,\u201d \u201cas soon as,\u201d and the like, gives clear indication that a promise is not to be performed except upon the happening of a stated event, and it can make no difference whether the event be called a contingency or the time of performance, since in neither case may performance be exacted unless or until the event transpires.\n5. Brokers \u00a7 11 \u2014 Agreement to pay commissions \u201cwhen the deal is closed . . . out of the sale price\u201d is enforceable only upon consummation of sale.\nThis action was instituted to recover brokerage commissions based upon an agreement set forth in a letter written by plaintiff broker which stated that the commissions were to be paid \u201cwhen the deal is closed up . . . out of the sale price.\u201d The evidence tended to show that plaintiff procured a purchaser who contracted to buy at a price agreed, but that the sale was not consummated because the purchaser thereafter became financially unable to comply. Held,: The contract is to be interpreted as written, and under its terms the broker is not entitled to recover commissions upon the facts and judgment of nonsuit was proper, there being no evidence to support plaintiff\u2019s contention that the failure to close the deal was due to defendant\u2019s own default or his contention of waiver.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bobbitt, J., at November Extra Term, 1945, of MeCKLENBTJRG.\nCivil action, by broker to recover commission for procuring purchaser ready, able and willing to buy land on terms authorized.\nThe plaintiff is a licensed real estate broker i\u00f1 the City of Charlotte. In August, 1944, he was given the exclusive right, for thirty days, to sell the old Charlotte Sanatorium property at a price satisfactory to the owner \u2014 commission to be paid \u201cout of the proceeds.\u201d On 1 September, 1944, the plaintiff prepared a letter for signature by the Palace Realty Company, addressed to Mr. U. A. Zimmerman, in which the owner agreed to sell to the addressee the Sanatorium property at a price of $100,000\u2014 \u201cDeed to be made up at once, and the transaction to be finally closed up soon as your attorney investigates title to the property.\u201d\nThis letter concludes with the statement: \u201cWhen the deal is closed up we will pay Frank F. Jones his commission of 5% . . . out of the sale price of the property.\u201d\nFollowing the signature of the Palace Realty Company by A. M. Whisnant, President, appears the acceptance in writing by U. A. Zimmerman, and also the signature of Frank F. Jones, agent for Palace Realty Company.\nNegotiations ensued looking to a consummation of the sale, but on 18 October, 1944, large Federal tax liens were levied against U. A. Zimmerman in consequence of which he \u201cbecame unable to comply with his contract.\u201d The deal, therefore, was never \u201cclosed up\u201d and the purchase price never paid.\nIn his testimony the plaintiff says : \u201cThe Palace Realty Company has never given me a commission for the sale of this property. I waited for weeks and weeks for him (Dr. Whisnant) to close it up. I didn\u2019t want to make any demand on him for my commission until it was closed up.\u201d\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of \u25a0 all the evidence, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nTaliaferro & Clarkson and Joseph W. Grier, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.\nRobinson & Jones for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0303-01", "first_page_order": 351, "last_page_order": 355 }