Godefroy v. Hupp

Citations

• 93 Wash. 371
• 160 P. 1056
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1212

Syllabus

<p>Brokers — Commissions—Procuring Cause — Question for Jury. Whether brokers were the procuring cause of an exchange of properties, is a question for the jury, where they produced the person ready, able and willing to make the exchange, and it is immaterial that the exchange as finally concluded by the principal did not embrace all the property listed.</p> <p>Same — Validity of Contract — Divisibility—Realty and Personalty. An oral contract for the payment of commissions on the sale of real estate being void under Rem. 1915 Code, § 5289, a contract for commissions on the exchange of both real and personal property, if indivisible, is subject to the bar of the statute in its entirety.</p> <p>Trial — Province of Court and Jury — Contracts. Whether a contract is divisible is a question of law dependent upon the terms of the contract; and what the terms are is a question of fact dependent upon the evidence.</p> <p>Same — Questions of Fact — Nonsuit—Judgment. Upon challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a nonsuit or judgment non obstante can be granted only when there is neither evidence nor reasonable inference from the evidence to sustain a verdict.</p> <p>Brokers — Contract for Commissions — Divisibility — Validity— Statute of Frauds. An oral agreement to pay a commission on any sale or exchange of defendant’s real estate or stock (whether of the real estate alone, the stock alone, or both together) is severable, as the several stipulations are not so interdependent but that a distinct engagement as to any one may be fairly extracted from the whole; hence, on an exchange of both real and personal property, the commissions as to the personalty put in at a definite value is not within the bar of the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Same — Divisibility of Contract — Evidence—Admissibility. In such a case, the broker is not bound by the written contract of exchange, to which he was a stranger, fixing no definite value upon the personalty, but may show by parol evidence th