Nance v. Valentine

Citations

• 99 Wash. 323
• 169 P. 862
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 646

Syllabus

<p>Frauds, Statute of — Broker’s Commissions-—Sufficiency of Memorandum. A contract for a broker’s commission on a sale of “my property, the 667 acre hay ranch located near Cataldo, Idaho,” is not sufficiently definite as to the description to constitute a compliance with Rem. Code, § 5289, requiring such contracts to be in writing (Ellis, C. J., Morris, Main, and Holcomb, JJ., dissenting).</p> <p>Same—Broker’s Commissions — Contract-—-Extrinsic Evidence. An indefinite contract for a broker’s commission, void under the statute of frauds, cannot be aided by resorting to a description in a contract for the exchange of the property where the writings upon their face made no reference to each other, as that would in effect defeat the statute.</p> <p>Same. An agreement for a broker’s commission “providing an exchange” of property to be made, cannot be construed as an agreement to pay for past services, to take it out of the operation- of the statute of frauds, Rem. Code, § 5289.</p> <p>Pleading—Defenses—Inconsistency—Broker’s Commissions. In an action for a broker’s commission, a denial of the allegations of the complaint is not inconsistent with and does not preclude the defense of the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Dismissal and Nonsuit—Motion—Judgment on Merits. In an action for a broker’s commission, in which it appeared that, after the close of plaintiff’s case, the contract was void under the statute of frauds, and the statute was affirmatively pleaded, defendant’s motion for judgment is more than a motion for nonsuit, and he'is entitled to a dismissal on the merits with prejudice.</p>