{
  "id": 8559434,
  "name": "WILLIAM K. SPARKS v. JAMES R. PURSER and wife, LOTTIE R. PURSER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sparks v. Purser",
  "decision_date": "1962-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "55",
  "last_page": "57",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "258 N.C. 55"
    }
  ],
  "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": "108 S.E. 2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621550
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 644",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N.C. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0721-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 761",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 737",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617004
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0737-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 S.E. 2d 227",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 760",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618562
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0760-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 S.E. 1008",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N.C. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252621
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/145/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 S.E. 2d 200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607181
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0345-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 332,
    "char_count": 5685,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.049712531892895e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7552266560714543
    },
    "sha256": "77fa591cdea1cff86bfd32c124348771a2307193b768aba5945d3e69b938fdfc",
    "simhash": "1:baf9b62c6a756cf1",
    "word_count": 958
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:31.620483+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM K. SPARKS v. JAMES R. PURSER and wife, LOTTIE R. PURSER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Higgins, J.\nBoth the plaintiff and the defendant James R. Purser appealed. The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to grant his motion for nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. The plaintiff assigns as error the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict out the third issue for that the jury having found the parties entered! into a contract which the defendant breached, the court as a matter of law should have answered the third issue $1,825.00.\nThe evidence disclosed that originally the defendants and the Senns had some negotiations looking toward the sale of the Queen\u2019s Road property. The negotiations were dropped. The Senns saw the plaintiff\u2019s advertisement and undertook to purchase the defendant\u2019s house and lot. However, the negotiations also involved a sale of the Senn\u2019s home. Before any final and binding offer was obtained by the plaintiff, the defendant apparently gave an exclusive listing to the Withrow Agency. The Senns saw Withrow\u2019s sign displayed on the lot and thereafter they negotiated with Withrow and closed the sale at the seller\u2019s price of $36,500.00 The plaintiff, never, at any time, was able to obtain an unqualified offer from the Senns or anyone else to pay the price fixed.\nThe plaintiff admitted he did not have an exclusive listing. He did not introduce evidence that he obtained an unqualified offer from a purchaser, ready, able and willing to pay $36,500.00. \u201cIt is the established law in this jurisdiction that a real estate broker is not entitled to commissions or compensation unless he has found a prospect, ready, able and willing to purchase in accordance with the conditions imposed in the broker\u2019s contract . . .\u201d Ins. Co. v. Disher, 225 N.C. 345, 34 S.E. 2d 200. \u201c. . . commissions are based upon the contract of sale.\u201d Trust Co. v. Adams, 145 N.C. 161, 58 S.E. 1008; White v. Pleasants, 225 N.C. 760, 36 S.E. 2d 227; Banks v. Nowell, 238 N.C. 737, 78 S.E. 2d 761; McCoy v. Trust Co., 204 N.C. 721, 169 S.E. 644.\nThis is not a case in which the owner went behind the broker\u2019s back to take advantage of his efforts, then closed the sale himself in order to escape a broker\u2019s commission justly earned, as in Cromartie v. Colby, 250 N.C. 224, 108 S.E. 2d 228. The sale was negotiated by Withrow, to whom the defendant paid full commission. The evidence did not make out a case for the jury. Compulsory nonsuit should have been entered at the close of the evidence. This disposition makes it unnecessary to discuss plaintiff\u2019s appeal. The judgment of the superior court is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Higgins, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Welling, Welling & Meek for plaintiff.",
      "Ray Rankin, Henry E. Fisher for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM K. SPARKS v. JAMES R. PURSER and wife, LOTTIE R. PURSER.\n(Filed 31 October 1962.)\nBrokers and Factors \u00a7 6\u2014\nPlaintiff broker\u2019s evidence to the effect that he was given a nonexclusive listing of defendant\u2019s property, that he contacted a prospective buyer but was never able to get an unqualified offer from the prospect for the price stipulated, that the seller thereafter gave the exclusive listing to another broker, and that the prospect thereafter purchased through such other broker, to whom the seller paid the full commission, is held, insufficient to be submitted to the jury in plaintiff\u2019s action to recover commissions.\nAppeal by plaintiff and by defendant J ames R. Purser from Riddle, S. J., April 9, 1962 Special \u201cB\u201d Term, MecKleNbueg Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff, a real.estate broker, instituted this civil action to recover $1,825.00 commission on the sale of -a house and lot on Queen\u2019s Road, West, in Charlotte. The defendants, by answer, denied the plaintiff had any exclusive listing of the Queen\u2019s Road house and lot, or .that he produced a purchaser, ready, able and willing to buy at the price fixed by the owners.\nThe evidence, in short summary, disclosed the following: At the time the defendants listed the house and lot with the plaintiff, they informed him that other realtors also had the listing. In addition, they reserved the right to make a sale themselves. Prior to the nonexclusive listing, the defendants had been in touch with the subsequent purchasers, Lawrence Y. Senn and wife, although the negotiations had been suspended. As a result of the plaintiff\u2019s ad in the paper, the Senns began and carried on with the plaintiff negotiations for the purchase of the Queen\u2019s Road property. These negotiations also included a sale of the Senn\u2019s home. The plaintiff, however, was not able to close a contract with the Senns. The defendants thereafter, without notifying the plaintiff, gave an exclusive listing to the Withrow Agency which displayed a \u201cfor sale\u201d sign on the lot. The Senns saw this sign and thereafter through the Withrow Agency, they closed a contract and purchased the Queen\u2019s Road house and lot at the price fixed by the defendants. The plaintiff was never able to secure an unqualified offer of $36,500 from the Senns or anyone else. The defendants paid the Withrow Agency the full commission of $1,825.00.\nAt the conclusion of the evidence the court dismissed the action against Lottie R. Purser, then submitted issues which the jury answered as here indicated:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant, James R. Purser, list the property at 1446 Queens Road West with the plaintiff for sale, as alleged in the complaint, and authorized him to sell it at a price of $36,500?\nAnswer: Yes.\n\u201c2. If so, did the defendant wrongfully breach said contract with the plaintiff?\nAnswer: Yes.\n\u201c3. If so, what amount is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?\nAnswer: $912.50.\u201d\nFrom the judgment on the verdict that the plaintiff recover of the defendant James R. Purser the sum of $912.50, both parties appealed.\nWelling, Welling & Meek for plaintiff.\nRay Rankin, Henry E. Fisher for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0055-01",
  "first_page_order": 95,
  "last_page_order": 97
}