Crosby v. St. Paul Lake Ice Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1898
• Docket Number: 11,288 - (32)
• Citation: 76 N.W. 958,74 Minn. 82
• Parties: S. P. CROSBY v. ST. PAUL LAKE ICE COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

76 N.W. 958

74 Minn. 82

S. P. CROSBY v. ST. PAUL LAKE ICE COMPANY

Nos. 11,288 - (32)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 31, 1898

Action in the municipal court of St. Paul to recover $38 for services rendered and disbursements incurred by plaintiff as an attorney at law. The cause was tried before Orr, J without a jury, and judgment was ordered for defendant. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Action for Services -- Purchase of Land -- Finding Sustained by Evidence.

In an action to recover for services in endeavoring to procure for defendant a tract of land suitable for its business, held that the evidence justified the court in finding that the agreement was that plaintiff was only to be entitled to compensation in case his efforts resulted successfully in procuring such tract.

S. P. Crosby, pro se.

W. P. Westfall, for respondent.

OPINION

MITCHELL, J.

This action was brought to recover for services alleged to have been performed by plaintiff for defendant, and at its request, in endeavoring to secure for it a suitable frontage on Lake McCarron, on which to cut ice. The trial court found for the defendant, and the only question is whether the finding was justified by the evidence.

The evidence is undisputed that there was some sort of contract or agreement on the subject between the parties, and that plaintiff did spend some time and money in efforts to secure for defendant a tract of land having such suitable frontage. It is equally undisputed that plaintiff never did secure any tract which defendant would or did accept. It does appear that plaintiff did find an owner of a piece of land fronting on the lake who was ready and willing to sell or lease it to the defendant, but the evidence, although conflicting, was such as to justify a finding that this tract was not suited, in either size or character, for the purpose of defendant's business.

Of course the foundation of plaintiff's claim to compensation must be a contract for its payment, express or implied, and the whole service contracted for must be rendered before the right to compensation can attach. Plaintiff's version of the contract is, in substance that he was to receive a reasonable compensation for whatever he did in the way of efforts to procure such a tract of land as defendant desired, whether those efforts were successful or not. On the other hand, defendant's...