Church v. Housen
Decision Date | 03 August 1908 |
Parties | D. W. CHURCH, EARL WHITE, and C. C. CHILSON, Partners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of CHURCH & WHITE COMPANY, Appellants, v. H. E. VAN HOUSEN, Respondent |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
REAL ESTATE BROKERS-VERDICT OF JURY-CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.
1. Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed.
2. Held, in this case, that there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, and that the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District for Bannock County. Hon. Alfred Budge, Judge.
An action to recover a commission for services as real estate brokers. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Judgment of the lower court affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.
Clark & Budge, for Appellants.
If a broker is encouraged by a property owner to aid in a sale and led to believe that he will receive compensation, the owner cannot accept the benefit of his services and deny him compensation. (Steidl v. McClymonds, 90 Minn. 205 95 N.W. 906.)
Gray & Boyd, for Respondent.
This court has repeatedly held that the appellate court will not disturb a judgment or verdict or order denying a new trial where there is a substantial conflict in the testimony, and no rule of law appears to have been violated. (Mootry v. Hawley, 1 Idaho 543; Pine v. Callahan, 8 Idaho 684, 71 P. 473; Spaulding v. Coeur d' Alene R. Co., 5 Idaho 528, 51 P. 408; Commercial Bank v. Lieuallen, 5 Idaho 47, 46 P. 1020; State v. Rathbone, 8 Idaho 161, 67 P. 186.)
The sole question presented on this appeal is: Does the evidence warrant the verdict? This action is to recover commission for services as real estate brokers. Trial was had to a jury and a verdict was rendered for the defendant.
It appears from the evidence that the plaintiffs were engaged in the real estate business in Pocatello, Idaho; that the defendant owned certain real estate in Pocatello and lived in Salt Lake, Utah; that on November 15, 1906, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant the following letter:
The defendant replied to this letter as follows:
Upon receipt of this answer, the plaintiffs called on Tom Johnson and informed him that they had heard from Mr. Van Housen and asked Johnson what the price would be, and he informed them that Van Housen wanted $ 3,000 net. The conversation with Johnson is further detailed by plaintiffs as follows:
It further appears from the evidence that the purchaser with whom the plaintiffs were negotiating was the Eagles' Lodge of Pocatello, and that the plaintiffs gave the lodge the purchase price as $ 3,150.
The defendant testified that he had not listed this property with the plaintiffs; that he had a letter from them about the matter and replied thereto; that he had a telephone later from some one with reference to the purchase of this property; that he was not advised of the name of such person, and advised such person that the property was for sale and to see Tom Johnson. He says:
Mr. Johnson testifies that he was acting as agent for Mr. Van Housen for the sale of said property, and had authority from him to sell it; that he never listed the property with the plaintiffs and never asked them to find a purchaser; never made any agreement with them; that he sold the property for Mr. Van Housen and turned the money over to him; that he does not expect any commission. This witness details the conversation had with the plaintiffs as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pomeroy v. Gordan
... ... of insufficiency of the evidence. (Ailshie & Snow, Idaho ... Dig., pp. 49-53; Church & White Co. v. Van Housen, ... 15 Idaho 249, 97 P. 36; McCallum v. McClarren, 15 ... Idaho 374, 98 P. 200; Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., ... 16 ... ...
-
Hilbert v. Spokane International Railroad Co.
...P. 378; Just v. Idaho C. & I. Co., 16 Idaho 639, 133 Am. St. 140, 102 P. 381, Leggett v. Evans, 16 Idaho 760, 102 P. 486; Church v. Van Housen, 15 Idaho 249, 97 P. 36; Whitney v. Woodmansee, 15 Idaho 735, 99 P. Later v. Haywood, 15 Idaho 716, 99 P. 828; Buckle v. McConaghy, 12 Idaho 733, 88......
-
Baillie v. City of Wallace
...618, 106 P. 991; Eaves v. Sheppard, 17 Idaho 268, 134 Am. St. 256, 105 P. 407; Liggett v. Evans, 16 Idaho 760, 102 P. 486; Church v. Van Housen, 15 Idaho 249, 97 P. 36; Valley Lumber Co. v. McGilvery, 16 Idaho 338, 101 94.) The jury held that the defendant was guilty of negligence, and that......
-
Eaves v. Sheppard
... ... be reversed on account of the insufficiency of the evidence ... when there is a substantial conflict therein. (Church v ... Van Housen, 15 Idaho 249, 97 P. 36; Camas Prairie ... State Bank v. Newman, 15 Idaho 719, 128 Am. St. 81, 99 ... P. 833; Later v. Haywood, ... ...