Nichols v. Whitacre

Decision Date22 May 1905
Citation87 S.W. 594,112 Mo.App. 692
PartiesJ. S. NICHOLS, Respondent, v. J. F. WHITACRE, Appellant
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

Appeal from Adair Circuit Court.--Hon. N. M. Shelton, Judge.



Rieger & Rieger and Campbell & Ellison for appellant.

(1) The theory of the court would perhaps have been correct, had respondent produced a purchaser, ready, willing and able to pay cash for the two farms; and perhaps if such cash purchaser had been produced, misrepresentations made to his principal thereafter, would not have affected respondent's right to recover; but a cash customer was not produced. (2) The procuring cause of the trade was the representations made by respondent, and the purchaser in his presence to appellant. (3) We take it to be the well-settled law of this State that a real estate broker, or any other person occupying the relation of an agent who makes false representations, or who is guilty of any fraudulent concealment, forfeits his right to compensation. Paul v Minneapolis, 87 Mo.App. 654; 23 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed), 921.

Millan & Greenwood for respondent.

(1) This is an appeal from the action of the court in granting appellant a new trial. This is a matter wholly in the discretion of the court. Chouquette v. Railroad, 152 Mo. 257-266, and authorities cited. (2) The case was tried by the court as shown by the rulings and instructions of the court on the theory Nichols was a general agent for Whitacre when all the evidence shows his employment was for a single act, viz.: to find and produce a man with whom Whitacre could either sell or trade the land. This he did and there his agency was at an end. He had earned his commission. (3) Under the law and the evidence the court properly sustained the motion for new trial. The court saw and heard the witnesses and concluded that a new trial would best subserve the ends of justice and respondent submits that the action of the court in granting him a new trial should be affirmed. Burdict v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 123, 221; Reid v. Ins Co., 58 Mo. 421, 152 Mo. 266.



The plaintiff's suit is to recover commission as a broker on a contract made between himself and defendant to procure for the latter a purchaser or an exchange of property for two farms, one consisting of 103 acres and the other 165 acres, for which he was to receive as such commission one dollar per acre. The plaintiff procured a purchaser in one, Samuel Surprise, of Storm Lake, Iowa, for the larger farm, the same party exchanging a house and lot in Iowa for the smaller farm. Thus far, there is no dispute between the parties except that defendant contends that plaintiff's commission was to be $ 200 and not one dollar per acre on the land sold and exchanged.

The purchaser, Surprise, went to see the land of defendant, but the latter did not go to see the house and lot owned by the former at Storm Lake, Iowa. Defendant testified that Surprise described the house as containing two stories and being almost new; that it was papered upstairs and below; that the sidewalks were made of granitoid; and that it was worth $ 2,500. The proof showed that a part of the house was old; that it contained only one and a half stories; that it was not papered in the upper story; that the walks were made of plank; and that it was not worth more than from $ 1,200 to $ 1,800. Defendant also testified that plaintiff was present when Surprise described the house to him, and that he confirmed as true the said description. He also testified that the commission he was to pay plaintiff was $ 200. Plaintiff denied having said to defendant that the Storm Lake property was a two-story house, papered throughout and that it had a granitoid walk. The house was valued at $ 2,500 and the farm exchanged for it at the same sum by the parties to the trade.

The verdict was for the defendant. On motion of plaintiff the court set the same aside, and defendant appealed. The reasons assigned by the court for setting aside the verdict were as follows: "Because the court is of the opinion that it erred in giving defendant's instructions one, two, three and four." And "because the court is of the opinion that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Taylor v. St. Louis National Life Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1915
    ... ... If in the ... opinion of the court the verdict is excessive the court is ... empowered to order a remittitur. Nichols v ... Whitacre, 112 Mo.App. 692; Grether v ... McCommack, 79 Mo.App. 325; Glade v. Mining Co., ... 129 Mo.App. 455; Smith v. Salt Co., 177 S.W ... ...
  • Duncan v. Turner
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1913
    ...Stone, 31 Mo.App. 501; Chipley v. Leathe, 60 Mo.App. 15; Childs v. Crithefield, 66 Mo.App. 422; Gellatt v. Ridge, 117 Mo. 553; Nichols v. Whitacre, 112 Mo.App. 692; Morgan v. Keller, 194 Mo. 663; Kilpatrick Wiley, 197 Mo. 123; Goldsberry v. Eades, 161 Mo.App. 8. (b) Even though the contract......
  • Cooper v. Upton
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1906
    ... ... willing, and ready to buy the land at a price satisfactory to ... the owner. Nichols v. Whitacre (Mo. App.) 87 S.W ... 594; Forrester v. Price, 6 Misc. Rep. 308, 26 N.Y.S ... 799; 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 915, 916; 19 Cyc ... ...
  • Bird v. Blackwell
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 11, 1909
    ...239; McCray & Son v. Pfost, 118 Mo.App. 677; Brown v. Smith et al., 113 Mo.App. 68; Sallee v. McMurry, 113 Mo.App. 264; Nichols v. Whitacre, 112 Mo.App. 692; Curry v. Whitmore, 110 Mo.App. 207; Goodson Embleton, 106 Mo.App. 77, 82; Gwinnup v. Sibert, 106 Mo.App. 712-13; McCormack v. Henders......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT