Fischer v. Holmes
| Decision Date | 03 May 1890 |
| Docket Number | 14,234 |
| Citation | 24 N.E. 377,123 Ind. 525 |
| Parties | Fischer v. Holmes |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Vigo Superior Court.
Judgment affirmed.
W. W Rumsey, for appellant.
This was a suit by the appellee against the appellant to recover a commission on the sale of real estate. The complaint alleges that the appellant employed the appellee, a real estate broker in the city of Terre Haute, to find a purchaser for the real estate of the appellant at the price of twenty-three hundred dollars, and agreed to pay for such service a commission of three per cent. on that amount; that he did find such purchaser, and that appellant did sell him said property at and for the price of twenty-one hundred dollars.
The appellant appeared to the action, and filed an affidavit to the effect that Thomas H. Riddle and John Vancleave were each claiming that he had sold the property mentioned in the complaint, as the agent of the appellant, and were each claiming a commission of three per cent. for such sale; that the appellee and the said Riddle and Vancleave were each claiming said commission of three per cent. on account of the sale of said property, and that the commission so claimed by said parties was on account of but one and the same transaction.
On said affidavit the appellant moved the court to make the said Riddle and Vancleave parties defendants to said action, which motion the court overruled, and appellant excepted.
Upon issues formed the cause was tried by a jury, which trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the appellee in the sum of fifty dollars.
It is contended by the appellant that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. It is claimed that under the contract declared on, the appellee should have recovered sixty-three dollars or nothing, and as the verdict was for fifty dollars only, it is not supported by the evidence. The evidence is not in the record, and for that reason we are unable to determine what merit, if any, there is in the plaintiff's contention. As the jury found, however, that the appellant and the appellee made the contract set out in the complaint, it would seem that the appellant should not be heard to complain that the jury did not allow the appellee as large a sum as he was entitle to recover. If the jury erred it was in favor of the appellant, and he can not complain that such error injured him.
It is earnestly contended by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial