ARK..] JOHNSON V. ,KNOWLES. 1089 JOHNSON . V. KNO'wLES. , Opinion delivered December 14, 1925. BROKERS—RIGHT TO cchvoussiort. Where a broker shoWed a house to a pidspective purchaser ,who declined to purchase it, but three months later rented the house, :and thereafter purchased it froni the owber, there being no connection between the 'broker's efiOrts and the sale, the agent was nat entitled ta a commissian. ' Appeal from Sebastian 'Circuit Court, Ft. Smith District ; John E . _Tatum; jndge; reversed. STATENIENT BY THE COURT.' Bettie C. KnoWlei stied A. 8. Johnsbn in the Municipal coUrt of the city of rOtt Smith to recover $180 fOr commissions alleged tO be . due her on the sale of certain rear estate for the defendant.. The trial of the 'case in themunicipal court resulted in a judginent for the defendant, from which the plaintiff aPpealed:' to the circuit court. There the plaintiff Was 'a witness in ber own behali. According. to her testnnony; she had been .engaged in the real estate business for four or five years in' Ft. Smith, Ark., at the time of the transaction in 'question. A...S. Johnson had built large nuiriber of houses in Ft. Smith, and had listed some of them ,with her 'for . ' sale. :This included the property whiCh is the basis of . the present suit for Commissions. The iilaintiff had an oral contract with A. S. JohnSon that, , if she sueceeded in finding- a purchaser for any of the prdpOrtr listed with hith, she was to have the usual commission of five per cent. She I t advertised.in a local daily paper that she had, residence PPP perty listed , for sale.,: Smith saw tI:Le
1090 JOHNSON v. KNOWLES. [169 advertiSement of. 'the plaintiff, and called to see her. 'The plaintiff took Mrs. Smith in her car, and shoWed her some of the property which Mr. Johnson had li§ted With her. The plaintiff fiist called Mr§. Smith's attention to a west front residence which is the property that Mrs. Smith afterwards 'bought, and which is the basis of this lawsuit. Mrs. Smith declined to consider the house, and told the plaintiff that she wanted a resi/dence with an east front. The plaintiff interested Mrs. Smith in a house with an east . front just across the 'street from the one in question, and Mrs. Smith would have purchased that house, but for the fact that Johnson refused to take in exchange a residenCe that Mrs. Smith owned in Okla-homa. Two or three Months later Mrs. SMith rented the house with the west front from Johnson. This is the same property which Mrs. Smith had first stated that she did not want, 'because 'it had a, west front. After Mrs. Smith had resided in this, house for one month, awl while it was still listed with the plaintiff, A. S. Johnson sold itio lier for 0,600, , a1id_ took in on the deal the Okla-homa property which Mis.i Smith owned. . Mr. B. Smith, and Mrs.. A. H. Smith were both witnesses for the , defendant. 'According to their testimony, Mrs. Bettie C. Knowles : never at any time showed Mrs. Smith the house which she later bought from the defendant, .or in any way tried to' sell the same•to her. On the other hand, she advised them on two occasions that it and another house next to it which 'belonged to A. S. Johnson had 'been sold. • They testified further that subsequently they were looking for a house to rent, and a friend called their attention tO the house in question, and they authorized him to ,rent it for them from A. S. John-son if he could do so. The house was rented from Mr. Johnson, and after they had ' lived in it four or five weeks they ' began to talk to Mr. Johnson about the purchase of the house, and later on, completed the deal. According to the testiniony of A. S. JohnsOn, he never at any time listed the house in OestiOn with the
ARK. JOHNSON V. KNOWLES. 1091 plaintiff, and she had nothing whatever to do with the sale of it. The ' jury returned a : verdict in favOr'Of the plaintiff, and Troth the judgMent rendered the defendant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court: W. L.. CUrtis, for appellant: Seaborn Holt, for appellee. HART, . J., (after stating the facts). Counsel for the plaintiff •seeks to uphold the judgthent on the authority of Scott v. Patterson, 53 Ark. 49, where it was held that if a real estate agent employed to. §ell land introduces a purchdser to 'the seller, and through such introduction a sale.is effected, he is entitled to.his commissions, though the sale is Made by the owner: • ' - • • We do not think that the plaintiff's own testimony bring§ the present case Within the principles" of' law decided in the case cited. 'The sale in . the 'present suit did not result from any act or course of conduct whatever of the plaintiff. According to her own testimony, she showed the house in question to Mrs. Smith, and the latter declined to purchase it because it had a west front. The plaintiff failed to sell Mrs. Smith a house across the street with an east front, because:they could not agree on taking in exchange some property which Mrs. Smith owned in Oklahotha. Then the transaction : so far as the plaintiff was ,concerned .ended., Two . or three months later Mrs. Smith rented from Johnson the property in question, and after she had lived in it fer about a month she entered into negotiations with Johnson Which led to the pfirchase Of tlie pioperty *by'her..: It is true that, according to the testimonr • of •the plaintiff, the property was still listed with . her, but she had nothing whatever to do with making the sale. It may be that after Mrs. Smith had lived in a house with a west front for a . while her objection to . that kind of a house was removed ;; hut, 'be that as it, may, she had definitely declined to 'purchase the property when it was shown to
her by the plaintiff, and the mattei was closed, so far' aS the plaintiff was concerned. • . There is nothing in the record tending to..show, that the subsequent purchase by Mrs. •Smith• from Johnson himself was for the purpose of preventing Mrs Knowles from receiving commissions, or that Mrs. Knowles was in any manner whatever ' interested in • malang the sale. Her part in trying to sell one of Johnson's houses to Mrs. Smith was ended, and there is no rule of law *hich would prevent Mrs. Smith from subsequently purchasing .a house from Johnson on her own account. • It follows :that the court erred in not instructing a verdict for the defendant as requested by him., and, inasmuch .as the case seem's to have been 'fully developed, no useful purpose could be served by' remanding it' for a new trial. , . . It , follows that the judgment will be reversed, and the cause of action dismissed here. ,
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.