Manufacturers' Furniture Co. v. Read

• Decision Date: 10 January 1927
• Docket Number: 78
• Citation: Manufacturers' Furniture Co. v. Read, 172 Ark. 642, 290 S.W. 353 (Ark. 1927)
• Parties: MANUFACTURERS' FURNITURE COMPANY v. READ
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

290 S.W. 353

172 Ark. 642

MANUFACTURERS' FURNITURE COMPANY v. READ

No. 78

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 10, 1927

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Richard M. Mann Judge; judgment modified.

Judgment modified.

Abner McGehee, for appellant.

Edward Dillon and Robinson, House & Moses, for appellee.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This action was instituted by appellee's testator against appellant to recover compensation alleged to have been earned under verbal contract between him and appellant, and in the trial below there were a directed verdict and judgment, from which an appeal has been duly prosecuted.The plaintiff died after the appeal was perfected, and the cause has been revived in the name of the present appellee as executor.It was alleged, in substance, that the defendant entered into a verbal contract with the plaintiff, whereby the latter was employed to negotiate a lease from the owner of a certain building in Little Rock for a term and period of three months, with an option to renew the lease for a further definite term, and that the defendant would pay the plaintiff fifteen dollars per month during the rental period of three months and the further sum of ten dollars per month, payable monthly, for the remainder of the rental period, if defendant renewed the lease; that plaintiff performed the service by securing a written lease contract from the owner of the building, and that, after the expiration of the fixed period of three months, defendant renewed the lease contract with the owner of the building, and that the plaintiff thereby earned the full compensation specified in the verbal contract.It was further alleged that the sum of $ 535 was earned under the terms of the contract, of which $ 45 was paid by defendant, but that the balance was due and owing for which there was a prayer for judgment.

The answer contained a plea of the statute of frauds, and also contained a denial that there was any contract for the payment of compensation in the event of renewal of the contract.

It appears from the uncontradicted testimony that the plaintiffA. C. Read, was employed by appellant to secure for the latter a rental contract with Kress & Company, the owner, for the lease of a building in the city of Little Rock, and that Read performed the contract by securing a lease contract with Kress & Company.The lease contract was in writing, and specified that the lessee should have the use of the premises for ninety days for the sum of $ 600, with an option to extend the lease for the balance of a term fixed in the lease contract between Kress & Company and Sawyer, its lessor.

It is also uncontradicted that appellant was to pay Read $ 45 as compensation for securing the contract, which was, in fact, paid; and also that appellant was to pay Read the sum of $ 10 per month, payable monthly, during the period of the renewal contract, if appellant should elect to exercise the option of renewal.

Appellant offered to prove by witness Jacobs that there was a misrepresentation made by Read concerning the presence of a railroad switch, or spur, which could be used in connection with the building.The court excluded this testimony, and the ruling of the court is assigned as error.

It is undisputed that the term of the renewal contract was for more than one year, and it is earnestly contended on behalf of appellant's counsel that this brought the contract between Read and appellant within the statute of frauds.We do not...