Michael v. White

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MCCULLOCH, C. J.
• Citation: Michael v. White, 181 S.W. 130, 121 Ark. 315 (Ark. 1915)
• Decision Date: 13 December 1915
• Docket Number: 39
• Parties: MICHAEL v. WHITE

181 S.W. 130

121 Ark. 315

MICHAEL v. WHITE

No. 39

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 13, 1915

Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court; J. I. Worthington, Judge affirmed.

Affirmed.

W. R Casey and Garner Fraser, for appellant.

1. The court abused its discretion in refusing a continuance. 113 Ark. 115.

2. The verdict shocks one's sense of justice. 70 Ark. 385. A jury can not be permitted to indulge in mere conjecture. 57 Ark. 402; 76 Id. 436.

George W. Reed, for appellee.

1. The question of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the court.

2. This court will not disturb a verdict where there is evidence to support it. 92 Ark. 200. There is no error.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action to recover commissions alleged to have been earned by the plaintiff in aiding in an exchange of real estate by the defendant to one Vaughan. Defendant G. W. Michael lived in New Hampshire and owned a tract of timber land containing 1,017 acres in Cleburne County, Arkansas. Plaintiff White lived in Cleburne County and he sues under an alleged oral contract whereby defendant agreed to pay him a commission of 10 per cent. on the sale or exchange of the lands to a customer found by plaintiff, or for aiding a sale or exchange to a purchaser found by the defendant himself a commission of 5 per cent. The defendant, while sojourning in Florida, entered into negotiations with Vaughan to exchange the Cleburne County land for certain real estate in Marietta, Georgia, which said property was, according to the testimony in this case, estimated in the trade at the value of $ 28,000. The defendant, in conducting the negotiations with Vaughan, referred him to the plaintiff and Vaughan and plaintiff corresponded. The testimony of Vaughan tended to show that the information which he received from the plaintiff was the inducing cause for the consummation of the deal.

Plaintiff sued for 5 per cent. commission, or $ 1,400, on the ground that he aided in the exchange to a customer found by the defendant himself. The defendant, on the other hand, alleges that he made no contract at all to pay the plaintiff a commission under any circumstances, and that his sole undertaking was to pay the plaintiff the stipulated sum of five dollars for showing the land to anyone whom the defendant might send there to look at the land. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor for the recovery of the sum of $ 1,400, and defendant has appealed.

The only argument here is that the verdict of the jury is not supported by any evidence. We think, however, that there is evidence in the record legally sufficient to support the verdict. The verdict is responsive to the testimony of the plaintiff himself. He states positively that the defendant agreed with him that if he aided in the sale or exchange of the property, where the defendant himself found the...