Clements v. Stapleton

• Decision Date: 24 October 1907
• Citation: 113 N.W. 546,136 Iowa 137
• Parties: CLEMENTS v. STAPLETON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

136 Iowa 137

113 N.W. 546

CLEMENTS

v.STAPLETON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 24, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Iowa County; C. A. Byington, Judge.

Suit to recover a commission for finding a purchaser for the defendant's property. Trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.C. Hedges and Thos. Stapleton, for appellant.

J. B. Murphy, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

The plaintiff was a real estate broker, and brought this suit to recover a commission which he alleged the defendant agreed to pay him if he would produce a person who would exchange other property for the defendant's property, or would buy said property, in either case, “on terms and at a value to be acceptable to the defendant.” The appellant pleaded the employment of the plaintiff as his agent to effect a sale or exchange of his property, but on somewhat different terms than those alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant also pleaded a mutual abandonment of the relationship between him and the plaintiff, and that the sale of his property thereafter was without any procurement on the part of the plaintiff.

The appellant's principal contention for reversal is based on the proposition that the verdict has so little support in the evidence that it should not be permitted to stand. There was a sharp conflict in the testimony of the parties as to the real terms of the contract; so much of a conflict that we cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict is not sufficiently supported without overruling an unbroken line of decisions. If the jury was satisfied that the agreement was that the plaintiff produce a purchaser for the property, the plaintiff was entitled to his commission when he produced a customer who was able and willing to buy the property and to whom the defendant did in fact sell. Reid v. McNerney, 128 Iowa, 350, 103 N. W. 1001;Kelly v. Stone, 94 Iowa, 316, 62 N. W. 842. That the plaintiff did in fact bring together Mr. Lewis, who bought the property, and the defendant, is admitted by the defendant. In other words, it is admitted that Mr. Lewis was induced to apply to the defendant through the agency of the plaintiff. It is urged, however, that negotiations were abandoned by both Mr. Lewis and the defendant, and that their resumption constituted an entirely different transaction. This was a question for the jury under the evidence, and, guided by proper instructions on the subject, it found against the appellant's contention.

Exception is taken to an instruction placing on the defendant the burden of proving an abandonment of the contract of agency with the plaintiff. The instruction announced a correct rule. The agency was shown to exist, in fact it was admitted during the first negotiations between Lewis and...