Burgess v. Cole
| Decision Date | 08 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | 9904. |
| Citation | 69 Colo. 341,194 P. 611 |
| Parties | BURGESS v. COLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1921.
Error to District Court, Routt County; Clarence J. Morley, Judge.
Action by John W. Cole against A. C. Burgess. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error, and seeks to have the writ of error made a supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
Findings of fact determined on ample, competent testimony and the judgment entered thereon, will not be disturbed on review.
Joseph K. Bozard, of Steamboat Springs, for plaintiff in error.
A. M Gooding, of Steamboat Springs, for defendant in error.
This action was brought for recovery of a commission said to be due plaintiff, John W. Cole, from defendant A. C. Burgess, for negotiating the sale of certain ranch and personal property for the latter. Trial was to the court with judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings the cause here for review and seeks to have the writ of error made a supersedeas.
It appears that Cole is a real estate agent, and that Burgess offered to sell his ranch, with certain personal property for $20,000.00, and, according to the testimony of Cole offered to pay Cole 'a good commission' should the latter find a buyer. Cole thereupon produced a person who bought the ranch and a part of the personal property, although not at the precise price or upon the exact terms first proposed. Burgess then tendered $50.00 to Cole in payment for his services, claiming that such sum was the agreed compensation. Cole disputed this and asserted that the agreement was that he should receive 'a good commission.' Evidence was introduced to show that five per cent. of the purchase price of the property was a reasonable and usual commission, and Cole recovered $850.00, being such per cent. of the sale price.
It is admitted that the sale was made to the person produced by Cole. It is true that the price was lower than that first suggested, but this is explained by the fact that only a portion of the personalty at first included was covered in the final transaction. This circumstance in no sense constitutes a new deal, as is contended, brought about solely by Burgess himself. McCampbell v. Davis, 10 Colo.App. 242, 50 P. 728; Carson v. Baker, 2 Colo.App. 248, 29 P. 1134; Knowles v. Harvey, 10 Colo.App. 9, 52 P. 46; Geiger v. Kiser, 47 Colo. 305, 107 P. 267.
The only question to settle is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. Warder
...the broker. Frost v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, Tex.Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d 121; Hutton v. Stewart, 90 Kan. 602, 135 P. 681; Burgess v. Cole, 69 Colo. 341, 194 P. 611; Minks v. Clark, 70 Colo. 323, 201 P. 45; Godefroy v. Hupp, 93 Wash. 371, 160 P. Appellant contends that the contract merely gi......
-
Blackburn v. Alachua County Broadcasting Co., C-50
...is consummated with a purchaser produced by the broker and who is ready, willing and able to pay the purchase price. See Burgess v. Cole, 69 Colo. 341, 194 P. 611; Hartman v. Warner, 1902, 75 Conn. 197, 52 A. 719; Sample v. Rand, 1900, 112 Iowa 616, 84 N.W. The testimony herein respect to t......
- Staley v. Klett