Best v. Beaudry
| Decision Date | 06 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | 4670. |
| Citation | 205 P. 239,62 Mont. 485 |
| Parties | BEST v. BEAUDRY ET AL. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Opinion.
Appeal from District Court, Cascade County; J. B. Leslie, Judge.
Action by C. D. Best against Valmore Beaudry and another transacting and doing business under the firm name of Beaudry Bros. From a judgment notwithstanding the verdict dismissing plaintiff's cause of action and from the order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.
T. F McCue, of Great Falls, for appellant.
Stephen J. Cowley, of Great Falls, for respondents.
So far as it is necessary to state the facts involved in this case in order to decide the only question which can properly be considered on this appeal, they are as follows: The plaintiff filed his complaint against the defendants, seeking to recover compensation for services alleged to have been rendered to and for them in connection with the sale of certain ranch property located in Cascade county, and in substance alleges: (1) That the defendants were partners under the firm name of Beaudry Bros.; (2) that in October 1918, defendants were the owners of a ranch known as "Beaudry Bros. Ranch," consisting of 3,200 acres and a considerable amount of personal property upon and about the same; that in said month they employed the plaintiff to canvass, advertise, and solicit for and bring them in touch with persons who would be likely to purchase such property, and for such services agreed to pay plaintiff 5 per cent. of whatever the property would sell for; that immediately thereafter the plaintiff did advertise, canvass, and solicit for a purchaser who might be able and willing to purchase the property; that, after doing this, plaintiff secured two persons whom he introduced and turned over to the defendants; and that as a result thereof negotiations were entered into between these two persons and the defendants, which resulted in a sale of said property to them by the defendants for the sum of $90,000.
The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff has fully performed all the terms and provisions of the contract on his part and that defendants have not paid him the compensation agreed upon.
The answer of the defendants admits the partnership and the ownership of the property as set out in the amended complaint, but denies all the other allegations thereof, except it admits that the described property was sold for the sum of $90,000.
The case came on for trial before the court and a jury on May 6, 1920. Testimony was introduced upon the part of the plaintiff and defendants, after which both plaintiff and defendants rested.
Thereupon, the court submitted to the jury the following single question:
"Did the defendants employ the plaintiff to secure a purchaser for the property described in the complaint and promise, in the event of his securing such purchaser, to pay him, the plaintiff, 5 per cent. of the purchase price of the property, when sold?" which they answered in the affirmative.
On the following day plaintiff moved for "judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict as returned by the jury herein." Subsequently, defendants moved the court for a judgment in their favor, "notwithstanding the verdict." On May 18th, the court made an order:
"That the plaintiff's motion be denied and that he take nothing, and that the defendants have judgment for their costs herein expended."
On June 9th, pursuant to the above-mentioned order, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial