Pratt v. Irwin
| Decision Date | 03 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 12073.,12073. |
| Citation | 189 S.W. 398 |
| Parties | PRATT v. IRWIN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Clarence A. Burney, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Horace Pratt against W. M. Irwin. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Amos A. Knoop, of Kansas City, for appellant. Thomson, Davis & Holmes, of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an action to recover a real estate agent's commission. The verdict was for defendant, and plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff lived in Kansas City, and defendant in Denver. Both were agents for a land company doing business at Denver. Defendant owned land in Colorado, and at a meeting of land agents in Kansas City employed plaintiff to procure an exchange of his land for land in Missouri. Afterward plaintiff and his cousin Isaac W. Ray, who owned land in Missouri, went to Colorado, met defendant, and entered into negotiations for the exchange of a farm of 240 acres in Colorado, which defendant owned for one of 80 acres in Missouri owned by Ray. The parties then went to Kansas City, and after defendant had inspected Ray's farm he and Ray entered into a written contract for the exchange of the farms. Two days later they entered into a supplemental contract correcting some deficiencies in the original, and on the same day plaintiff had an oral agreement about the commission the latter was to receive from defendant. According to the testimony of plaintiff the parties agreed that plaintiff had earned the commission and fixed the amount at $1,000, which defendant agreed to pay. This is denied in part by defendant who states he said to plaintiff: "If this deal is completed and the papers are transferred I would be willing to pay $1,000," to which plaintiff replied, "Of course, I wouldn't expect a commission unless the deal is completed."
Afterward Ray refused to make the exchange, and defendant brought suit against him on the contract at Denver. That suit was compromised and dismissed, and a new contract of exchange was entered into in which Ray agreed to pay plaintiff's commission. Plaintiff denies that he agreed to this substitution, but there are facts and circumstances in evidence which tend to show that the new contract was entered into by Ray with his knowledge and consent. Ray refused to perform that contract, and defendant brought suit against him in the federal court at Kansas City. Then plaintiff began this suit and obtained service on defendant while he was in Kansas City.
The answer alleged that plaintiff and Ray entered into a conspiracy "to bring about an apparent contract between the said Ray and the said defendant for the very purpose of making it appear that the defendant was indebted to the said plaintiff for services in bringing about said contract, when in truth and in fact the said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tant v. Gee
... ... Development ... Co., 320 Mo. 828, 838(VI), 8 S.W.2d 828, 831[4]; ... LaForce v. Washington University, 106 Mo.App. 517, ... 81 S.W. 209; Pratt v. Irwin (Mo. App.), 189 S.W ... 398; Westerman v. Peer Inv. Co., 197 Mo.App. 278, ... 195 S.W. 78.] Mr. Tistadt's contract of purchase was ... ...
-
Youngman v. Miller
...with him, even though the purchaser afterwards refuses to carry out the contract. [Knisely v. Leathe, 256 Mo. 341; 166 S.W. 257; Pratt v. Irwin, 189 S.W. 398; Bird Rowell, 180 Mo.App. 421, 167 S.W. 1172; Hayden v. Grillo, 35 Mo.App. 647; Stone v. McConnell, 187 S.W. 884.] It will be noted t......
- Waddell v. Krause
-
Harris v. Wheeler
...N. Y. Supp. 82; Baker v. Brewer's Est. (Ind. App.) 133 N. E. 397; Coleman v. Edgar Lumber Co., 155 Ark. 275, 244 S. W. 41; Pratt v. Irwin (Mo. App.) 189 S. W. 398; Seymour v. St. Luke's Hospital, 28 App. Div. 119, 50 N. Y. Supp. 989; Ash v. Oppman, 199 Ill. App. 573; Boysen v. Frink, 80 Ark......