Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view About OCR text.

684 RECORD AND GUIDE May 19, 1917 The personnel of the Committee on Coal Production is as follows: Francis S. Peabody, chairman; George W. Reed, secretary; E. J. Berwind, New York, representing Central Pennsyl¬ vania, Maryland and Low Volatile fields of West Virginia; W. W. Keefer, Pitts¬ burgh, Pa., representing Western Penn¬ sylvania, Ohio and Michigan; Van H. Manning, Washington, D. C, director. United .States Bureau of Mines; C. M. Moderwell, Chicago, 111., representing Illinois, Indiana and Western Kentucky; E. L. Pierce, Syracuse, N. Y., represent¬ ing ' coke industry; Erskine Ramsey, Rirmingham, .Ala., representing Ala¬ bama, Tennessee, Georgia and North Carolina; George Otis Smith, Washing¬ ton, D. C, director. United States Geo¬ logical Survey; James J. Storrow, Bos¬ ton, Mass., representing New England; H, N. Taylor, Kansas City, Mo., rep¬ resenting .Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mis¬ souri, Oklahoma and Texas; S. D. War- riner, Philadelphia, Pa., representing anthracite coal industry; J. F. Welborn, Llenver, Colo., representing Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, L'tah, Washington and Wyo¬ ming, and Daniel B. Wentz, Philadel¬ phia, Pa., representing Eastern Ken¬ tucky, Virginia and high volatile fields of West Virginia. The headquarters are located in the new Interior Department Building, at Washington, D. C. LEGAL NOTES AFFECTING REALTY Prepared by Committee on Real Estate Laws of Real Estate Board, Samuel P. Goldman, Chairman Parties Adversely Interested. AN action was brought by a real es¬ tate broker against a client for commissions claimed to have been earned for effecting an agreement for an ex¬ change of real estate. Defendant em¬ ployed plaintiff as a broker to sell cer¬ tain houses and lots in the city of New York, or to procure an exchange thereof for a farm. Plaintiff found a person who owned a farm at .Austerlitz, N. Y., and an agreement was made between the respective owners of the city and coun¬ try properties for an exchange. The only defense which the court found it necessary to consider was that based upon the fact that plaintiff had a secret agreement, concealed from defendant, whereby he was to receive a commission from the owner of the farm, as well as from defendant. That he had such a secret agreement was admitted, but it was the plaintiff's contention, in which he was upheld by the Appellate Term, that the fact of such an agreement did not preclude a recovery of commissions from the present defendant. The Ap¬ pellate Term rested its decision upon Knauss v. Krueger Brewing Co., 142 N. Y. 70, 36 N. E. 867. In that case the evidence showed that the broker was employed solely to bring the parties to¬ gether, having nothing to do with the negotiations between them, and neither assuming nor being requested to advise as to the desirability of the purchase or the terms of sale. In that very case the court said: "In regard to the subject of the double employment, if it be of a nature where by possibility the interests of the parties may be diverse, we agree that it cannot be upheld if concealed from knowledge." 142 N. Y. 77, 36 N. E. 868. "On the other hand," the New York -Appellate Division said, reversing the decision of the .Appellate Term, Erland v. Gibbons, 163 N. Y. Supp. 582. "the authorities are numerous and unanimous to the effect that, where a broker ad¬ vises his principal as to the desirability of a sale or exchange and takes an active part in the negotiations, he cannot re¬ cover his commissions if it appears that without his principal's knowledge he has an agreement for a commission from the other party to the negotiations. Carman v. Beach, 63 N. Y. 97:"Tacobs v. Beyer, 141 .-App. Div. 49, 125 N.'Y. Supp. .597; Dickinson v. Tvsen, 209 N. Y. 395- -100. 103 N. E. 703. "In the present case, the concealment from defendant of the agreement for a commission from the owner of the farm is distinctly admitted by plaintiff. He swears that he did not communicate the fact to defendant 'because I did not think it was anybody's business.' As to the relation of advisor which he assumed towards defendant, the evidence leaves no doubt. The defendant, whom the trial court believed, swears most posi¬ tively that plaintiff not only advised him to take the farm in exchange for his lots, hut strongly urged him to do so, and the plaintiff himself testified that his agreement with defendant was that he should get a place for the latter and 'ad¬ vise him whether I thought it was good or bad,' and again he says: " 'Mr. Gibbons asked me what I (hought of the place, and I told him I thought it was all right.' "Indeed, the whole testimony as to the actual transaction shows very clearly that plaintiff did not content himself with introducing the parties and leaving them to negotiate between themselves, but actively and rather insistently urged upon the defendant the desirability of making the proposed exchange. Under these circumstances, he cannot recover a brokerage." Specific Performance of Contract. In an action to enforce specific per¬ formance of a written contract for the exchange of real property, it appeared that the plaintiff agreed to exchange an elevator apartment house for property owned by defendants, the contract pro¬ viding that an annexed statement of rents was a true and correct statement cf the income of the premises. The statement showed that only three of the apartments were vacant, and at the time fixed for the transfer it appeared that, v.hile more than three of the apartments were physically vacant, yet only two REGISTERING ARCHITECTS. A TTENTION is called to the ■^ fact that the New York State Law regulating the practice of architecture has recently been amended. One of the amend¬ ments extends the exemption pe¬ riod whereby certificates of regis¬ tration may be issued to archi¬ tects who were in practice pre¬ vious to the enactment of the original registration act, namely, April 28, 1915. All architects who were in practice in New York State previous to that date may now secure certificates, provided their applications are filed before January 1, 1918, and provided such applications are approved by the Board of Examiners. Appli¬ cation blanks may be secured by addressing the Department of Ed¬ ucation. Educational Building, Al¬ bany. New York. One of the amendments iust enacted is of in¬ terest to architects of other states and reads as follows: "Any archi¬ tect who has lawfully practiced architecture for a period of more than ten years without the State shall be reauired to take onlv a practical examination, which shall be of the nature to be determined by the State Board of Examiners pnd Registration of Architects." One of the amendments of the New York Law which is of interest to those of other states contemDlating similar legislation is as follows: "But this article shall not be construed to prevent persons other than architects from filing anplications for building per¬ mits or obtaining such permits." were actually vacant, the others being held under valid leases, or under leases to commence the following day; the con¬ dition of the apartment house thus being better then than represented. The New York .Appellate Division held, Leona Holding Corp. v. Bigelow, 163 N. Y. Supp. 252, that plaintiff was entitled to specific performance, there being no sub¬ stantial breach, notwithstanding a letter written by plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that there were five vacan¬ cies; the letter showing the true state of affairs, and that the apartments were under valid leases. Boundaries. , Where a lane for its entire length was well defined and recognized as such for a period of more than 30 years and was used as a lane openly, notoriously, ad- i.ersely, and continuously as a means of ingress and egress to and from the re¬ spective properties adjoining, the long acquiescence of the owners involved in accepting the fences along the sides of the lane as the boundary lines of their properties was held conclusive against them.—Marion v. Balsley. Michigan Su¬ preme Court, 161 N. W. 820. Exchange of Properties. .A contract for the exchange of prop¬ erties provided that defendants' land waa to be taken by plaintiff, subject to a mortgage for five years. Defendants being unable to secure an extension of the mortgage in time, the parties en¬ tered into a supplementary agreement, which allowed defendants until Novem¬ ber 1 to procure the mortgage, and pro¬ vided that, if they failed, plaintiff should be left to his own resources, with the help of a note which the defendants ex¬ ecuted to him. The next day defendants conveyed the land to a third person at plaintiff's request. In an action on the note the New York Appellate Division holds, Reisenburger y. Otto, 163 N. Y. Supp. 243. that, while it was expected that plaintiff should be the mortgagor, defendants, by conveying to the third person, consented that he be substituted, and the conveyance did not render the supplementary agreement void, so as to preclude recovery on the note. Incomplete Contract of Sale. .An offer to purchase real estate by letter accompanied by a payment of a certain sum was met hv the introduction of new conditions which were not ac¬ cepted by the purchaser. The latter in a subsequent letter introduced other nevi/ conditions, which the vendor did not ac¬ cept, but requested a verbal conference. This was agreed to by the purchaser, but without the holding of any confer¬ ence he subsequently demanded the re¬ turn of earnest money. The Illinois Ap¬ pellate Court. Mertel v. Walter. 200 111. App 136, held that there was no meet¬ ing in the minds of the parties so as to constitute a contract of sale, and the purchaser was entitled to recover back the earnest money. The Coal Situation. .At a meeting of the Upper Manhattan Propert}' Owners' .Association a com¬ mittee of twelve was appointed to in¬ vestigate the coal condition. It is the object of this committee to meet other committees from all property owners' associations, and to provide ways and means to supply heat for the tenants for the coming winter. Many suggestions were made such as the use of soft coal, oil burners and gas. The various ideas are going to be ex¬ perimented with and if found practical, legislation will be asked for to allow modifications of the various city ordin¬ ances so as to use these means to stave off the high prices and shortage of coal. Suggestions will be asked from all manufacturers of substitutes for coal and if possible the use of coal will be en¬ tirely done away with. The method of oil burning so successfully used in the far West will be given a thorough trial. The Committee will be glad to receive any suggestions that should be sent to Coal Committee of the Upper Manhat¬ tan Property Owners' Association.