Keith v. Berry Et Al‪.‬

CLAGETT, Associate Judge. Appellant sued appellee, a licensed real estate broker, claiming $515, representing the unpaid balance of $865 allegedly deposited with the broker to be applied toward the purchase of a house. The bonding company was named as co-defendant on the basis of a bond indemnifying customers of the broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers' License Act. 1 The trial court found that appellant had advanced only $605 and that she had been repaid $350. The trial court also held that the balance of $255 had been properly expended for her account and hence that appellee owed appellant nothing. This appeal followed. Dealings between the parties began sometime in November 1945, when appellant, a woman of little business experience and only a sixth-grade education, who desired to purchase a house, agreed to make periodic deposits with appellee which he was to keep for her until there was enough for a down payment on an acceptable house. The undisputed testimony was that this money was to be returned to appellant whenever she desired it. Appellee, as her agent, was to try to locate a house for her, and she was to reimburse him for his out-of-pocket expenses in her behalf. Over a period of nearly a year she was shown several houses. Offers to purchase were signed by appellant covering two separate premises, but no binding contracts resulted.