Donohue v. Padden

• Decision Date: 27 March 1896
• Citation: 66 N.W. 804,93 Wis. 20
• Parties: DONOHUE v. PADDEN.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

93 Wis. 20

66 N.W. 804

DONOHUE

v.PADDEN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 27, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, St. Croix county; E. B. Bundy, Judge.

Action by Nicholas Donohue against John J. Padden to recover a broker's commission. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover $300, as commission for selling lands for defendant. Plaintiff was a real-estate dealer. One David Sires, being desirous of purchasing a farm, procured plaintiff to show him several he had for sale. They started out for that purpose from plaintiff's place of business in New Richmond. Plaintiff informed Sires that, if he sold him a farm and located him thereon, there would be no charge for his services; that he always got his pay from the seller. On the trip, Sires' attention was attracted by a farm owned by defendant, which he said would satisfy him. Plaintiff said he would take Sires to the owner. They returned to New Richmond, stopping at plaintiff's place of business. Sires remained there while plaintiff, without Sires' knowledge, so far as appears, went to Padden, and, without plaintiff's informing him that Sires desired to purchase the farm, they made an agreement by the terms of which it was provided that if plaintiff sold the farm he should have all received over $3,400. He then returned to Sires, who was waiting to be accompanied by plaintiff to see defendant. Both then returned to Padden's place of business, where plaintiff introduced Sires as the man who wanted to buy the farm. Defendant and Sires then made a bargain by which the farm was sold the latter for $3,700, which bargain was thereafter fully consummated. Plaintiff thereafter demanded of defendant $300 as compensation for making the sale. Defendant refused to comply with such demand, and this action was brought to recover the sum mentioned. The foregoing facts being established on the trial, the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant appealed.Baker & Helms, for appellant.

A. J. Kinney, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

All that is required, to entitle an agent to his commission for selling land, is employment, for a compensation, to make the sale, and the production of a purchaser ready, able, and willing to take the property at the price named. McArthur v. Slauson, 53 Wis. 41, 9 N. W. 784;Potvin v. Curran, 13 Neb. 302, 14 N. W. 400;Hopgood v. Corbin, 63 Iowa, 218, 18 N. W. 911;Cassady v. Seeley, 69 Iowa, 509, 29 N. W. 432;Van Gorder v. Sherman, 81 Iowa, 403, 46 N. W. 1087;Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83, 47 N. W. 452;Barringer v. Stoltz, 39 Minn. 63, 38 N. W. 808. In the last case, as in this, the customer had been...