Braden v. Sherer Town Lot & Immigration Co.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1910 |
| Citation | 128 S.W. 1159 |
| Parties | BRADEN v. SHERER TOWN LOT & IMMIGRATION CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Deaf Smith County Court; W. H. Russell, Judge.
Action by the Sherer Town Lot & Immigration Company against Ira Braden. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Barcus & North, for appellant. Knight & Slaton, for appellee.
The appellee company instituted this suit against appellant to recover reasonable compensation for services relating to an exchange of land between appellant and one Brockman. It was alleged that the appellee was a real estate broker, and that appellant had listed with it for sale or trade about 470 acres of land situated in Huerfano county, Colo., priced at $15,750; that afterwards appellee secured a purchaser of this land in one W. I. Brockman; that appellant and Brockman agreed to an exchange of lands, whereby appellant acquired Brockman's property in Deaf Smith county and Brockman acquired appellant's property in Colorado. Omitting pleas not necessary to notice, appellant answered that appellee was not his agent; that he had never agreed to pay the company any commission, but, on the contrary, that appellee acted in the exchange as the agent of Brockman; that Brockman had listed his property with appellee, had agreed to pay it a commission; and that appellee in fact had collected a commission from Brockman. The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in appellee's favor for the sum of $362.50, and judgment was entered accordingly.
In various forms appellant insists that the evidence required a verdict and judgment in his favor, and we think the contention must be sustained. Appellee has not briefed the case, but from the statement of evidence in appellant's brief, which in the absence of reply we are authorized under the rules to accept, and also from such examination of the evidence as we have been able to give, it seems undisputed that, soon after appellant listed his property with the appellee company, Brockman also listed his property with the appellee, at the time specifically agreeing to give it a commission of 5 per cent. upon a sale or trade of his property. No specific agreement was made with appellant for commissions, and it further seems undisputed that, after Brockman listed his property, a member of the appellee firm sought out appellant and brought the parties together; that, after the exchange had been agreed upon between appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clopton v. Meeves
...1 Colo. App. 348, 29 P. 301; Pinch v. Morford, 142 Mich. 63, 105 N.W. 22; Hannan v. Prentis, 124 Mich. 417, 83 N.W. 102; Braden v. Sherer (Tex. Civ. App.), 128 S.W. 1159; Scott v. Kelso (Tex. Civ. App.), 130 S.W. There must be an affirmative and clear showing that each of the parties had a ......
-
Buck v. Woodson
...Tex. 635, 19 S. W. 268; Moore v. Kelley, 162 S. W. 1034; Bass v. Tolbert, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 112 S. W. 1077; Braden v. Scherer, etc., 61 Tex. Civ. App. 240, 128 S. W. 1159; Tinsley v. Penniman. 12 Tex. Civ. App. 591, 34 S. W. 365; Yoakum v. Gossett, 200 S. W. 582; Mechem on Agency, vol.......
-
Paul v. Prince
...for its breach. Armstrong v. O'Brien, 83 Texas, 635, 19 S. W. 268; Mechem on Agency, § 798." To the same effect are Braden v. Scherer, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 240, 128 S. W. 1159; Moore v. Kelley, 162 S. W. 1035, in which writ of error was refused by the Supreme Court, 107 Tex. 715, 170 S. W. xvi......