McCormick v. Sewell
| Decision Date | 20 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 3073,3073 |
| Citation | 372 P.2d 481 |
| Parties | Vera McCORMICK and Richard McCormick, d.b.a. McCormick Agency, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Albert SEWELL and Shirley Sewell, Appellees (Defendants below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert R. Rose, Jr., Casper, for appellants.
Maurer & Garst and Joseph Garst, Douglas, for appellees.
Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER, HARMSBERGER, and McINTYRE, JJ.
This is a suit, the prayer of which asked damages in the amount of $5,500 because defendants having sold certain real property for $110,000 refused to pay plaintiffs a commission. The court found for the defendants and plaintiffs have appealed. The Sewells on December 26, 1958, had signed a printed form denominated 'Real Estates Brokers Agency Contract,' listing with the McCormick Agency their 1,803-acre ranch property for $145,000 during a term of 365 days. The form provided, 'If you are successful in finding a purchaser for said property, or if the same is sold within a period of 60 days from the expiration of this listing to anyone to whom you have shown the property and of whom we have had notice, we agree to pay you a commission according to the schedule printed below.' It contained the words 'grant you the exclusive right to sell' but the word 'exclusive' was blocked out. Because the place did not sell at the mentioned price, Albert Sewell on September 30, 1959, signed another form identical to the previous one except that the word 'exclusive' was not deleted. The period in this instance was ninety days and the price $110,000. In February 1960 defendants negotiated with plaintiffs regarding the sale of the ranch to prospective buyers by the name of Rothleutner who had first evinced an interest in the ranch in November 1959. According to defendants' testimony, they talked to Vera McCormick on the afternoon of February 16 and told her they would give her one more day to make a sale to the Rothleutners and if this could not be done the McCormicks were through. Mrs. McCormick said that she would have the Rothleutners out to the place the next day. That evening when the Sewells returned home they found from their daughter and son-in-law that Etta Nichols, a neighbor, had inquired about the purchase of their ranch. They went over to her home, told her that the McCormicks had one more day for the sale to the Rothleutners, who were to be out on the morrow, and that they would let her know whether or not it sold. On February 17 the Rothleutners came, talked for some two hours, but said that they could not raise the money, and left. That evening an option agreement was signed by the Sewells and Mrs,. Nichols, by which the latter paid $1,000 down on defendants' ranch at a sales price of $110,000, the actual contract for the sale being drawn by an attorney on March 30 and the sale thereafter consummated. Plaintiffs admitted that they had never shown Mrs. Nichols the ranch but testified that they had discussed the purchase of it with her. Mrs. Nichols'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McArtor v. State
...evidence. Brown v. State, Wyo., 581 P.2d 189 (1978). The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses. McCormick v. Sewell, Wyo., 372 P.2d 481 (1962); Stock v. Roebling, Wyo., 459 P.2d 780 (1969). On appeal, we do not evaluate the evidence but only ascertain whether or no......