Chesser v. Kahn

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Chesser v. Kahn

124 A.2d 850, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 284

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 20, 1956

DocketNo. 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.2d 850 (Chesser v. Kahn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chesser v. Kahn, 124 A.2d 850, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 284 (D.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Associate Judge.

This appeal is by a real estate broker from a judgment awarding a real estate salesman his share of a commission collected by the broker. Accepting the salesman’s testimony, as the trial court evidently did, there is no question that the sale producing the commission was effected through the efforts of the salesman and that the broker had agreed that the salesman would receive one-half of the commission if and when collected. The broker argues that, even if this be true the salesman was not entitled to share the commission because of Code, § 45-1408(e) which makes it unlawful for a salesman to accept a commission from anyone other than the broker under whom he is licensed. This argument is based on the fact that, although the salesman’s services were performed while he was licensed under the broker, the contract of sale was executed and consummated, and the commission was paid, after the salesman had left the broker’s employment and had gone to work for another broker. We see nothing in the Real Estate and Business Brokers’ License Act¹ which prevents a salesman from collecting from a broker that which is due for services performed while duly licensed under the broker. The mere fact that when the compensation became due the salesman had transferred to another broker’s office is no bar to a recovery. We so ruled in Riddell v. Howar, D.C.Mun.App., 90 A.2d 925.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOOD, Associate Judge.

This appeal is by a real estate broker from a judgment awarding a real estate salesman his share of a commission collected by the broker. Accepting the salesman’s testimony, as the trial court evidently did, there is no question that the sale producing the commission was effected through the efforts of the salesman and that the broker had agreed that the salesman would receive one-half of the commission if and when collected. The broker argues that, even if this be true the salesman was not entitled to share the commission because of Code, § 45-1408(e) which makes it unlawful for a salesman to accept a commission from anyone other than the broker under whom he is licensed. This argument is based on the fact that, although the salesman’s services were performed while he was licensed under the broker, the contract of sale was executed and consummated, and the commission was paid, after the salesman had left the broker’s employment and had gone to work for another broker. We see nothing in the Real Estate and Business Brokers’ License Act¹ which prevents a salesman from collecting from a broker that which is due for services performed while duly licensed under the broker. The mere fact that when the compensation became due the salesman had transferred to another broker’s office is no bar to a recovery. We so ruled in Riddell v. Howar, D.C.Mun.App., 90 A.2d 925.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.2d 850, 1956 D.C. App. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesser-v-kahn-dc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack