Espenlaub v. Sheetz
| Decision Date | 31 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | 15,177 |
| Citation | 200 N.E. 717,102 Ind.App. 368 |
| Parties | ESPENLAUB v. SHEETZ |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied July 2, 1936.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT---Compensation of Agent---Commissions on Sales---Effect of Principal's Refusal to Consummate Sale.---Where plaintiff contracted orally to find a purchaser for cash for defendant's automobile for which he was to receive the excess of the purchase price over $300, and procured such a purchaser ready, able and willing to pay $400, and defendant refused to transfer the property plaintiff was entitled to recover the stipulated commission with interest from the time of such refusal.
From Vanderburgh Probate Court; Albert J. Veneman, Judge.
Action by Elmer L. Sheetz against George H. Espenlaub for damages for breach of an agency contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
W. C Clippinger, for appellant.
Craig & Mitchell, for appellee.
Appellee brought this action against appellant to recover an amount alleged to be due him on account of appellant having repudiated and breached a contract made between them whereby appellee, as agent of appellant, agreed to sell a used automobile owned by appellant, appellee to receive for his services in so doing an amount equal to any excess of $ 300.00, which appellee might procure from a purchaser of said automobile.
The complaint alleges, among other things, the making of said contract; that appellee procured a purchaser who was ready able, and willing to purchase said automobile for $ 400.00; that appellant refused to transfer and convey said automobile to the purchaser so procured, and breached the contract, although appellee had done and performed all things by him to be performed under the agreement; that appellee had repeatedly demanded payment of the amount of $ 100.00, due him under the contract, and that appellant has failed and refused to pay the same, or any part thereof. The complaint was answered by general denial, and, thereafter, the cause was submitted to the court for trial. Upon appellant's request, the court made a special finding of facts, and stated its conclusions of law thereon. The special finding is as follows: (1) "That on or about the 28th day of January, 1931, the defendant, George H. Espenlaub, and the plaintiff, Elmer L. Sheetz, entered into a verbal contract whereby the said defendant contracted and engaged with the plaintiff, that the plaintiff procure a purchaser for one Studebaker President Eight automobile, owned by the defendant; (2) that by virtue of said contract, the plaintiff was to sell the said automobile for cash, and was to retain or receive, as and for his compensation for effecting such sale, such part of the purchase price therefor as exceeded the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300), which latter sum was to be received by the defendant in consideration of his transfer and sale of said automobile to the purchaser to be secured by the plaintiff under the said contract; (3) that the plaintiff, while the said contract was in force and effect, on March 13, 1931, procured a purchaser for the said automobile, who was ready, able and willing to purchase the same for the sum of Four Hundred Dollars ($ 400.00), to be paid in cash; (4) that the defendant was advised, by the plaintiff, of the fact of said sale, but the defendant refused to so execute, assign and deliver the said Certificate of Title thereto; (5) that of the sum of Four Hundred Dollars ($ 400), which the purchaser, procured by the plaintiff, agreed to pay for said automobile, the plaintiff was, by the terms of the agreement between himself and the defendant, to receive or retain the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($ 100), as his compensation; that the said sum of One Hundred Dollars ($ 100) together with interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial