Patterson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 25 October 1919 |
| Docket Number | 32273 |
| Citation | 174 N.W. 363,187 Iowa 633 |
| Parties | W. B. PATTERSON, Appellant, v. G. E. JOHNSON, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn District Court.--F. O. ELLISON, Judge.
PLAINTIFF seeks to recover a commission of $ 1.00 per acre for lands sold by the defendant to one Anderson, and the claim is based upon an agreement that such commission shall be paid the plaintiff for "following up work and closing land deals with customers," Anderson being one of the customers referred to. In the alternative, appellant claims that, if not entitled to a commission under the contract, defendant breached the contract, and appellant should be allowed the same amount as said commission, as damages for breach of such contract. A verdict was directed in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
L. M Kratz, for appellant.
J. E Patterson and Warren Harmon, for appellee.
I.
Appellant contends that, under his "contract," he is entitled to recover $ 320, though he never reached Anderson, and never closed with him. We need give no consideration to the original contract between the parties. In that contract, it is especially provided that no commission shall be paid for soliciting, where another agent sends or brings the buyer. Under it, the commission is "for sales made." It provides for a larger compensation than plaintiff claims, and for one that is fixed by the supplemental contract only. The petition states that the original contract provides commission for procuring purchasers. Appellant concedes in argument that the original contract "has no material value in reference to the issues in this cause." The petition declares damages are due because defendant broke his contract as to closing of deals, in that he closed the deal with Anderson himself. In one word, unless the supplemental contract gives plaintiff $ 1.00 an acre, without regard to whether he did or did not close the Anderson deal, the judgment appealed from must stand. The supplemental contract is an agreement that plaintiff is to be paid $ 1.00 an acre for "following up work and closing land deals with customers," including Anderson. Plaintiff sues to obtain $ 1.00 an acre under this contract. We cannot agree to his claim that this contract fixes $ 1.00 an acre as the damages to be paid plaintiff if another than he was permitted by defendant to close the Anderson deal. We read this contract to be an agreement to pay that sum, not as damages because another was permitted to close the deal, but as compensation to plaintiff if he closed the deal. We do not say plaintiff has no remedy if, by violating the contract, defendant prevented plaintiff from closing with Anderson. We hold that, for such case, the contract fixes no damages, and that it was for plaintiff to show what damages he sustained by not being permitted to carry out the contract, and that, on such proof, he might recover the amount proven, not to exceed $ 1.00 per acre.
We will assume for appellant that conditions as to selling the 320 acres bought by Anderson were such that, had appellant reached Anderson, he could have completed the sale to him, in which event he would have been entitled to the compensation he sues for.
What evidence is there as to what sum defendant lost by being prevented from closing with Anderson? There is none. That he would have been entitled to the contract amount, had he closed the deal, is no evidence that his damages are as great as the amount of that compensation which he was not allowed to earn. He concedes there was work to do in closing these deals, by securing contracts and notes. This work he did not do, though he would have been obliged to do it, to obtain the contract pay. It might have been much or little work. We have no evidence on how much work plaintiff might have had to do had he been permitted to close with Anderson. We have no evidence how much...
To continue reading
Request your trial