Kilpinski v. Bishop
| Decision Date | 04 October 1910 |
| Citation | 143 Wis. 390,127 N.W. 974 |
| Parties | KILPINSKI v. BISHOP. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shawano County; John Goodland, Judge.
Action by Martin Kilpinski against Fred Bishop to recover broker's commission for selling land. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Plaintiff complained that he was employed by defendant to find a purchaser, satisfactory to the latter, for certain real estate he possessed, the compensation for his services to be $150; that plaintiff fully performed such agreement and that there was due and unpaid on account thereof $75.
Defendant answered that the commission contract was in writing and the exact contents thereof unknown to him as it was retained by plaintiff; that, when it was made the understanding was that to earn the commissionplaintiff would be required to produce a purchaser for defendant's realty ready, willing and able to pay therefor in cash or other property $4,500; that defendant sold such realty taking other land in exchange, relying on the honesty of his agent and his representations as to such other property and that such agent was working solely in his interests; that, in fact, plaintiff secretly acted as agent for defendant's customer under promise of pay by him and that plaintiff received such pay; that defendant, without knowledge of such facts, paid plaintiff $75.
Defendant counterclaimed for a recovery of such amount.
The written contract was as follows:
The evidence showed that plaintiff performed by producing a purchaser for defendant's realty satisfactory to him, and to whom the property was sold, he taking on account thereof other real estate on the faith of representations as to its character made by his customer and corroborated by plaintiff.
At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor upon the theory that the contract was unambiguous, and clearly showed that plaintiff was employed merely as a middleman, and there was no proof to show that his representations respecting the property taken by defendant were untrue.
Eberlein & Eberlein, for appellant.
P. J. Winter, for respondent.
MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The contract of employment is in writing. The writing is not in itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Bowen
... ... 141 Ala. 680, 37 So. 670; Law v ... Ware, 238 Ill. 360, 87 N.E. 308; Grasinger v ... Lucas, 24 S.D. 42, 123 N.W. 77; Kilpinski v ... Bishop, 143 Wis. 390, 127 N.W. 974; Tasse v ... Kindt, 145 Wis. 115, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1222, 128 N.W. 972; ... Friar v. Smith, 120 Mich ... ...
-
Commerce v. Grandall
...v. Heaney, 168 Wis. 58, 78, 169 N. W. 64;State ex rel. Attorney General v. Steber, 161 Wis. 576, 580, 155 N. W. 146;Kilpinski v. Bishop, 143 Wis. 390, 127 N. W. 974;Gilbert v. Stockman, 76 Wis. 62, 44 N. W. 845, 20 Am. St. Rep. 23;Taylor v. Davis, 82 Wis. 455, 52 N. W. 756; Jones on Ev. (2d......
- Rice v. Friend Bros. Co.
-
Mandelker v. Goldsmith
...580, 171 N. W. 75;Miley v. Heaney, 168 Wis. 58, 78, 169 N. W. 64;Jones v. Keefe, 159 Wis. 584, 587, 150 N. W. 954;Kilpinski v. Bishop, 143 Wis. 390, 392, 127 N. W. 974; Jones on Ev. § 434. [2] Defendants further assert that the proceedings in the circuit court whereby the judgment of the ci......