Campbell v. Yager

• Decision Date: 30 June 1891
• Citation: 32 Neb. 266,49 N.W. 181
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. YAGER.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

32 Neb. 266

49 N.W. 181

CAMPBELL

v.YAGER.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 30, 1891.

Syllabus by the Court.

One C. was employed by Y. to sell certain city property, and effected an exchange of real estate with one P. After the transaction was complete, P. paid C. $100 for his services, although he testified that he had previously not employed him. Held, there being no charge of bad faith, that if Y. had employed C. to sell his property, and he had procured a sale and exchange of the same upon terms satisfactory to Y., he was entitled to a fair compensation for his services.

Error to district court, Adams county; GASLIN, Judge.Capps & McCreary, for plaintiff in error.

Dilworth, Smith & Dilworth, for defendant in error.

MAXWELL, J.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, the cause of action being set forth in the petition as follows: “Plaintiff is by occupation and business a broker and dealer in real estate, usually termed ‘land agent.’ That his place of business is in Hastings, Adams Co., Neb. That on or about the 1st day of August, 1888, defendant placed in the hands of plaintiff for sale his two brick store-buildings situated on Hastings avenue, between 2d and 3d streets, in the city of Hastings, Adams Co., Neb., at the asking price of $13,000 for the two; and then and there defendant agreed to pay plaintiff what his services in the disposal of said property should be worth in the procurement by this plaintiff of a purchaser of said store-buildings and lots upon which the same were situated, for the defendant. That on or about the 1st day of February, 1889, in pursuance of said agreement, plaintiff did procure and introduce to said defendant a purchaser, and then and there the defendant sold his said property to one George H. Pratt, he being the party introduced by plaintiff as above stated; said sale being for the price and upon the terms defendant had previously authorized and instructed the plaintiff to procure as purchase price for same. That the said George H. Pratt was the party plaintiff procured to purchase said property, and was the party plaintiff introduced to defendant, and to whom said property was then and there sold as aforesaid; by reason of which the defendant has become indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of four hundred and ten and 18-100 dollars, together with lawful interest thereon since said sum became due and payable.” The answer is a general denial, and plea that the plaintiff in making the...