Bowyer v. Bradford

• Decision Date: 19 February 1912
• Citation: 144 S.W. 145,162 Mo.App. 138
• Parties: W. E. BOWYER et al., Respondents, v. W. J. BRADFORD et al., Appellants
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

144 S.W. 145

162 Mo.App. 138

W. E. BOWYER et al., Respondents, v. W. J. BRADFORD et al., Appellants

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

February 19, 1912

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. E. E. Porterfield, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

James M. Houston and T. B. Buckner for appellants.

E. S Bennett, Strother & Campbell for respondents.

(1) Respondents did not deny partnership under oath and it stands admitted. R. S. 1909, sec. 1985; Nephler v Woodward, 200 Mo. 179; Tyrrel v. Milliken, 135 Mo.App. 293. (2) Where one asks and receives service there is an implied contract to pay. By appellants asking for information and receiving it, there was an implied contract to pay therefor as found by the trial court. Levitt v Miller, 64 Mo.App. 147; McQueen v. Wilson, Adm'r, 51 Mo.App. 138; Thomas v. Lumber & C. Co., 43 Mo.App. 653. (3) This court will not disturb a finding of the trial court, where there is any substantial evidence in support thereof. Furniture & C. Co. v. Davis, 86 Mo.App. 296; Swayze v. Bride, 34 Mo.App. 414; Caruthers v. Williams, 58 Mo.App. 101; Arnold v. Ins. Co., 55 Mo.App. 149. (4) Custom of real estate agents to divide commission was plead and proven in this cause. Cameron v. Real Estate Co., 76 Mo.App. 366; Baer v. Glasner, 90 Mo.App. 289. (5) There was no competent evidence offered by appellant excluded and no incompetent evidence on behalf of appellee admitted over objection of appellants.

OPINION

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiffs are partners as real estate agents, and the defendants are, also. Plaintiffs claim that they had an agreement with defendants that if one firm found a purchaser for lands the other firm had for sale, they would divide commissions; and that under this agreement they furnished defendants a farm, which they had for sale, which defendants sold to a customer they had who desired that kind of premises. Defendants made the sale but denied the agreement to divide commissions. Plaintiffs thereupon brought this action, before a justice of the peace. On appeal to the circuit court they recovered judgment in a trial had without the aid of a jury.

Since the trial court found for plaintiffs, we must accept as the facts of the case all that the evidence in plaintiffs' behalf tends to prove and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom.

It appears that the contract claimed by plaintiffs to have been made, was originally entered into with the predecessor of the present defendants, under the partnership name of Allen & Brawner, the latter being a member of the present partnership; and undoubtedly there was evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the contract was made. But before anything was done under the contract, the firm of Allen & Brawner was dissolved, by Brawner going into partnership with Bradford under the name of Bradford & Brawner, and it is the latter firm which is sued on...