Gwinnup v. Sibert
Decision Date | 25 April 1904 |
Citation | 80 S.W. 589,106 Mo. App. 709 |
Parties | GWINNUP v. SIBERT et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County; Jno. P. Butler, Judge.
Action by F. M. Gwinnup against Mary A. Sibert and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
E. R. Stephens, for appellants. F. W. Powers and West & Bresnehan, for respondent.
The plaintiff sues for commission for sale of land. It is conceded that defendants verbally authorized plaintiff to sell certain land belonging to Mary A. Sibert, wife of defendant J. F. Sibert; that he procured a purchaser at defendants' price, who was able to and offered to pay for the land, but that defendants refused to consummate the transaction, and sold to another party. Defendants contend that plaintiff's contract was not in writing, and that the sale was not consummated. The statute of frauds (section 3418, Rev. St. 1899), upon which defendants rely, is as follows: "And no contract for the sale of lands made by an agent shall be binding upon the principal unless such agent is authorized in writing to make said contract."
This question is not a new one in this state. In Hurst v. Randall, 68 Mo. App. 507, the court held, in speaking of a sale made by the agent who had no written authority from his...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Hern Family Ltd. P'ship v. Compass Bank
-
Weatherhead v. Cooney
...... has been sold by his broker ratifies the sale in writing, it. is immaterial whether the agent's authority was in. writing." (Gwinnup v. Sibert, 106 Mo.App. 709,. 80 S.W. 589; 2 Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Const. 1101, secs. 600, 601.). . . C. W. Beale, for Respondent. . ......
-
Friedman v. Suttle
......67, 40 S.E. 850; Smith v. Browne, 132 N.C. 365, 43 S.E. 915; Cody v. Dempsey, 86 A.D. 335, 83 N.Y.S. 899; Fox v. Starr, 106 Ill.App. 273; Gwinnup v. Sibert, 106. Mo.App. 709, 80 S.W. 589; Wilson v. Clark, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 92, 79 S.W. 649. Parol evidence of such an. agreement or promise is ......
-
Moots v. Cope
...... his commissions, and in such case it has been held in many. decided cases, as for example Gerhart v. Peck, 42. Mo.App. 644, and Gwinnup v. Sibert, 106 Mo.App. 709,. 80 S.W. 589, that it was not necessary that plaintiff should. show a written authority to act as a real estate agent ......