Sec. 18. Missouri; Authority To Sell (P. 29)

The Missouri Act of March 28, 1903 (Sec. 4634, R.S. 1909), forbidding an agent in certain cities to sell real estate unless his authority is in writing, is unconstitutional.7

Sec. 21. Washington; Authority To Sell Or Purchase (P. 31)

Add to footnote 20:

J. E. Houtchens Co. v. Nichols, 142 Pac. (Wash.) 674 (1914); Baylor v. Tolliver, 142 Pac. (Wash.) 678 (1914); Salin v. Roy, 142 Pac. (Wash.) 679 (1914); Keith v. Smith, 46 Wash. 131; 89 Pac. 473; 13 Ann. Cas. 975.

Sec. 22a. Oregon; Authority To Sell Or Purchase (P. 31)

In Oregon, an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell or purchase real estate for compensation or a commission is void "unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, be in writing . . . . "8

5 Sorenson v. Smith, 65 Or. 78, 91; 129 Pac. 757; 131 Pac. 1022; 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 612; 35 Ann. Cas. 1127 (1913); citing Myers v. Surryhne, 67 Cal. 657; 8 Pac. 523; Shanklin v. Hall, 100 Cal. 26; 34 Pac. 636; McGeary v. Satchwell, 129 Cal. 389; 62 Pac. 58; Dolan v. O'Toole, 129 Cal. 488; 62 Pac. 92; Beahler v. Clark, 32 Ind. App. 222; 68 N. E. 613; Price v. Walker, 43 Ind. App. 519; 88 N. E. 78; King v. Benson, 22 Mont. 256; 56 Pac. 280; Marshall v. Trerise, 33 Mont. 28; 81 Pac. 400; Blair v. Austin, 71 Neb. 401; 98 N. W. 1040; Rodenbrook v. Gress, 74 Neb. 409; 104 N. W. 758; Barney v. Lasbury, 76 Neb. 701; 107 N. W. 989; Gerard-Fillio Co. v. McNair, 68 Wash. 321; 123 Pac. 462.

6 Hagemen v. O'Brien, 24 Cal. App. 270; 141 Pac. 33 (1914).

7 Printz v. Miller, 233 Mo. 47; 135 S. W. 19 (1911); Woolley v. Mears, 226 Mo. 41; 125 S. W. 1112; 136 Am. St. Rep. 637 (1910); Cornet v. Cabrilliac, 228 Mo. 212; 126 S. W. 1030 (1910); Klene v. Marjorie Realty Co., 228 Mo. 607; 128 S. W. 980 (1910). See also Young v. Ruhwedel, 119 Mo. App. 240 (1906).

8 Sec. 808, L. O. L.

Under that statute it is held that the written authorization must state the compensation to be paid to the broker.9

Sec. 22b. Arizona; Authority To Sell Or Purchase (P. 31)

"An agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate, mines or other property, for compensation or a commission," cannot be sued upon unless in writing.10

Even full performance by the broker of his part of the contract does not take it out of the operation of the statute if the agreement is oral only.11

Sec. 22c. Indiana; Authority To Sell (P. 31)

In Indiana the statute provides: "That no contract for the payment of any sum of money, or thing of value, as and for a commission or reward for the finding or procuring, by one person, of a purchaser for the real estate of another, shall be valid, unless the same shall be in writing signed by the owner of such real estate or his legally appointed and duly qualified representative."12

Accordingly it is held that there can be no recovery on an oral contract of employment to act as agent for the sale of real estate.13

But where the services have been rendered under an oral agreement, a subsequent written agreement executed after the services are rendered is enforceable.14

"Section 1 of the act of March 5, 1001 (Acts of 1901, p. 144, c. 67), and sec. 74G3 of Burns' Revised Statutes of 1908, provide that no contract for the payment of money as a commission for finding or procuring a purchaser for real estate shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the owner of the real estate. This act is supplemental to the statute of frauds and should be construed accordingly."15

9 Taggart v. Hunter, 152 Pac. (Or.) 871 (1915).

10Civ-: Code, Ariz. 3272, 1913.

11 McMurran v. Duncan, 155 Pac. (Ariz.) 306 (1916). See also Keith v. Smith, supra.

12Sec.'6629a Burns 1901, Acts 1901, p. 104.

13Waddle v. Smith, 58 Ind. App. 587; 108 N. E. 537 (1914); Lowe v. Mohler, (Ind. App.) 105 N. E. 934 (1914); Zimmerman v. Zehender, 146 Ind. 466; 73 N 920 (1905).

14\Yaddle v. Smith, supra.

15 Wellenger Crawford, (Ind. App.) 89 N. E. 892 (1909).