Sheffield v. Sharp

Ohio Court of Appeals

Sheffield v. Sharp

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 684, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 901

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1926

DocketNo. 6402

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 684 (Sheffield v. Sharp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheffield v. Sharp, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 684, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 901 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Walter Sharp instituted an action in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas against Mira Sheffield, claiming that, by the terms of an oral contract, he was to act as her agent in the sale or exchange of real estate owned by her and that he should have the sole and exclusive agency or right to sell the same, within a period of one year; and that, in the event the land was sold by Sheffield through her own efforts, Sharp should nevertheless be entitled to his commission. It was claimed that, during the year, Sheffield sold the premises.

The verdict and judgment were in favor of Sharp, and error is prosecuted.

“If an owner of real estate chooses to make a contract with a broker, in which it is stipulated that the broker shall have the exclusive right to sell the property within a specified time, and that he shall be entitled to receive a certain commission if a sale be made within the time designated, no matter who makes it, he- is bound by its terms, and cannot be relieved from a bad bargain because his agreement may have been foolish or improvident.” 22 Pa. 357.

There was no error in the courts charging that if plaintiff had a contract for the exclusive sale of the property, no matter by whom it might be sold, he could recover.

The question of the statute of frauds does not enter into the case because plaintiff claimed no interest in the land and the contract was susceptible of performance within the year. Randall v. Turner, 17 OS. 270.

(Mauch, PJ., and Middleton, J,, concur.)

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

SAYRE, J.

Walter Sharp instituted an action in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas against Mira Sheffield, claiming that, by the terms of an oral contract, he was to act as her agent in the sale or exchange of real estate owned by her and that he should have the sole and exclusive agency or right to sell the same, within a period of one year; and that, in the event the land was sold by Sheffield through her own efforts, Sharp should nevertheless be entitled to his commission. It was claimed that, during the year, Sheffield sold the premises.

The verdict and judgment were in favor of Sharp, and error is prosecuted.

“If an owner of real estate chooses to make a contract with a broker, in which it is stipulated that the broker shall have the exclusive right to sell the property within a specified time, and that he shall be entitled to receive a certain commission if a sale be made within the time designated, no matter who makes it, he- is bound by its terms, and cannot be relieved from a bad bargain because his agreement may have been foolish or improvident.” 22 Pa. 357.

There was no error in the courts charging that if plaintiff had a contract for the exclusive sale of the property, no matter by whom it might be sold, he could recover.

The question of the statute of frauds does not enter into the case because plaintiff claimed no interest in the land and the contract was susceptible of performance within the year. Randall v. Turner, 17 OS. 270.

(Mauch, PJ., and Middleton, J,, concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 684, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheffield-v-sharp-ohioctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack