White v. . Pleasants

Winborne, J. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we are of opinion that exception to the ruling of the court below in granting motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit is well taken. The evidence offered by plaintiff appears to be sufficient to take the case to the jury upon appropriate issues. Appellee concedes at the outset that oral contracts between real estate brokers and their principals for the sale of land of the principal are enforceable as such. Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C., 403, 40 S. E., 119; Lamb v. Baxter, 130 N. C., 67, 40 S. E., 850; Smith v. Browne, 132 N. C., 365, 43 S. E., 915; Palmer v. Lowder, 167 N. C., 331, 83 S. E., 464. And it is not debated on this appeal that plaintiff has introduced evidence tending to show that defendant requested plaintiff to sell a certain lot of land for him at the price of $1000 — without fixing any time limit within which plaintiff was authorized to sell the lot, and without specifying compensation to plaintiff for selling it. It is a settled principle of law that a simple contract of agency for the sale of land for an indefinite and unstated time is generally revocable, in good faith, at any time before the broker makes the sale of the land, or produces a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to buy on the *763 terms set forth by the principal. But where the broker has made a sale of the land, or has produced a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to buy on the terms set forth by the principal, the principal, although having the power, has no legal right, without incurring liability for the wrongful termination, to revoke the broker’s agency to sell. 12 C. J. S., 46, Brokers, section 16; 8 Am. J., 1007, Brokers, section 39. See also Abbott v. Hunt, supra; Clark v. Lumber Co., 158 N. C., 139, 73 S. E., 793; Crowell v. Parker, 171 N. C., 392, 88 S. E., 497; Real Estate Co. v. Sasser, 179 N. C., 497, 103 S. E., 73; Hagood v. Holland, 181 N. C., 64, 106 S. E., 154; House v. Abell, 182 N. C., 619, 109 S. E., 877; Olive v. Kearsley, 183 N. C., 195, 111 S. E., 171; Gossett v. McCracken, 189 N. C., 115, 126 S. E., 117; Johnson v. Ins. Co., 221 N. C., 441, 20 S. E. (2d), 327; Lindsey v. Speight, 224 N. C., 453, 31 S. E. (2d), 371; Ins. Co. v. Lisher, ante, 345. Moreover, when under an existing contract of agency to sell land in which no stipulation is made for compensation the broker has made a sale, or produced a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to buy the land, the rule seems to be that the broker is entitled to recover the reasonable value of his services. See Lindsey v. Speight, supra, where the authorities are assembled. See also Thomas v. Realty Co., 195 N. C., 591, 143 S. E., 144. In the light of these principles of law applied to the evidence offered by plaintiff, the judgment below is Eeversed.