Grosse v. Cooley
| Decision Date | 24 April 1890 |
| Citation | 45 N.W. 15,43 Minn. 188 |
| Parties | GROSSE ET AL. v COOLEY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Where a real-estate broker has procured a purchaser for the property of his principal, the solvency and ability of such purchaser to performthe obligations of his contract will be presumed until the contrary is proven.
Appeal from municipal court of Minneapolis; MAHONEY, Judge.
Action by Julius Grosse and others against Mary A. Cooley to recover commissions under a contract for the sale of real estate for defendant. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Exhibit A was the contract of sale between plaintiffs and the alleged purchaser, and Exhibit B a receipt for the earnest money.
E. E. Cooley, for appellant.
Gray & Pulliam, for respondents.
We fail to discover any prejudicial error in the rulings of the trial judge, and we think the evidence fully sustains the findings. It is sufficiently established that the defendant agreed with plaintiffs to pay them $500 commission if they would procure a purchaser for a certain tract of real estate at a specified price; that they did find such a purchaser at that price and on terms satisfactory to defendant; that such purchaser executed a written contract; agreeing to buy the land on those terms, and paid $200 earnest money on the bargain. There is no evidence that this purchaser has ever refused to carry out his bargain, or that he was unable to do so. This was sufficient to establish plaintiffs' right to recover. A real-estate broker is entitled to his commission under a contract like this when he produces a purchaser able, ready, and willing to buy on the owner's terms. The main point urged by appellant is that the burden was on plaintiffs to show that the proposed purchaser was solvent, and able to carry out the bargain. The rule in this state is otherwise. Solvency is always presumed until insolvency is proven. The presumption is that the purchaser was able to perform the obligations assumed by his contract. Goss v. Broom, 31 Minn. 484,18 N. W. Rep. 290;Crevier v. Stephen, 40 Minn. 288,41 N. W. Rep. 1039. His willingness to do so in this case was evidenced by his executing a binding contract to that effect, and paying earnest money. The plaintiffs certainly made out a prima facie case. There was no error in admitting in evidence the contract Exhibit A. Although plaintiffs might have had no authority to sign such a contract of sale in behalf of de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shell Oil Co. v. Kapler
...the witnesses on other issues, evidence of the 1950 valuation had no material bearing. 4. Defendants, upon the authority of Grosse v. Cooley, 43 Minn. 188, 45 N.W. 15, Sherwood v. Rosenstein, 179 Minn. 42, 228 N.W. 339, and Horrigan v. Saeks, 187 Minn. 115, 244 N.W. 545, allege that the jur......
-
Colburn v. Seymour
... ... required to disprove a case until one is made against him. In ... Goss v. Brown (Minn.) 18 N.W. 290, Grosse v. Cooley (Minn.) ... 45 N.W. 15, Simonson v. Kissick, 4 Daly, 143, McFarland v ... Lillard (Ind. App.) 28 N.E. 229, 50 Am.St.Rep. 234, and Levy ... ...
-
Bailie v. Ridker
...inability to consummate the sale rested upon defendant. He concedes that there is a presumption of financial solvency, Grosse v. Cooley, 43 Minn. 188, 45 N.W. 15; Sherwood v. Rosenstein, 179 Minn. 42, 228 N.W. 339; Horrigan v. Saeks, 187 Minn. 115, 244 N.W. 545, but argues that affirmative ......
-
Stewart v. Smith
...This instruction changed the burden of proof, which is error on the part of the court,”--citing, with others, the case of Grosse v. Cooley (Minn.) 45 N. W. 15, wherein it was held: “Where a real-estate broker has procured a purchaser for the property of his principal, the solvency and abili......