Iselin v. Griffith
Decision Date | 30 January 1884 |
Citation | 18 N.W. 302,62 Iowa 668 |
Parties | ISELIN ET AL. v. GRIFFITH |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from O'Brien District Court.
ACTION to recover compensation for negotiating the sale of two tracts of land. The cause was sent to a referee, and, upon his report, judgment was rendered for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
Barrett & Bullis, for appellant.
J. B Emmes, for appellees.
I.
The petition alleges that defendant, by an oral contract employed plaintiffs to negotiate the sale of certain land. By the terms of the contract, plaintiffs "were to find a purchaser, or endeavor so to do," and were to receive as compensation whatever the land sold for above $ 6.50 per acre. It is alleged that plaintiffs "did find a purchaser" for the land at the price of $ 9 per acre "who were ready and willing to pay, and offered to pay that price in cash" for the land, and that defendant was notified thereof, and plaintiffs requested him to execute a deed to the purchaser, which he refused to do, and sold the land to another.
Defendant in his answer admits that he authorized plaintiffs to sell the land, and the allegation of the petition as to plaintiffs' compensation. He also admits that he sold the land to another after he had received notice of the sale by plaintiffs.
The referee returned the following finding of facts:
The defendant excepted to the referee's report, upon the grounds that it fails to show that the referee found that the purchaser secured by plaintiff was able and ready to make the purchase, and possessed of the money to pay for the land, and that these facts were not established by the evidence; that the findings are not supported by the evidence in other specified particulars; and that plaintiffs are concluded by the answer of defendant, which they offered in evidence.
II. It will be observed that the referee found that plaintiffs offered the land to a firm who accepted the offer, but did not find that the firm was ready, or possessed of the ability, or were in a condition, to purchase the land. There was no evidence introduced at the trial upon these points.
We think that, in order to entitle plaintiffs to recover something more than a mere offer to purchase should be shown by them. Such an offer could be made by one without means, and who is in no condition to comply with the terms of the sale, and against whom a claim for damages, resulting...
To continue reading
Request your trial