Printz v. Miller

• Decision Date: 28 February 1911
• Citation: 233 Mo. 47,135 S.W. 19
• Parties: PRINTZ v. MILLER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

135 S.W. 19

233 Mo. 47

PRINTZ v. MILLER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 28, 1911.

1. BROKERS (§ 1)—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 88)—REGULATIONS—CONSTITUTIONALITY.

Act March 28, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 161 [Ann. St. 1906, § 1993-2], now Rev. St. 1909, § 4634), requiring that brokers in cities of 300,000 inhabitants and more shall have written authority for the sale of real property, and providing that any broker selling such property without written authority shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, is unconstitutional.

2. TRIAL (§ 141)—TAKING CASE FROM JURY — UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE.

Where the evidence of plaintiff is undisputed, its credibility and weight are for the jury, and it is error to give a peremptory instruction for the plaintiff.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by Arthur G. Printz against Bertha Miller and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The plaintiff, a duly licensed real estate agent of the city of St. Louis, sued the defendants before a justice of the peace to recover $87.50, commission alleged to be due him for selling a certain vacant lot of defendants, located in said city. He recovered judgment before the justice against both defendants for the amount sued for. From that judgment, the defendants appealed to the circuit court, where a trial de novo was had, which resulted in a judgment for the defendants; and after taking the necessary preliminary steps, the plaintiff appealed the cause to this court. Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that he was a duly licensed real estate agent, doing business in the city of St. Louis; that defendants owned the lot mentioned; that they orally placed the same in the hands of plaintiff for sale for the price of $3,500; that in pursuance to that arrangement he sold, or caused to be sold, the lot to one Milentz for said sum; and that he demanded of defendants 2½ per cent. commission for making the sale, which had been previously agreed to. Plaintiff's evidence was undisputed. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendants demurred to the evidence, for the reason that the former's authority to sell the lot was not in writing, as required by the act of March 28, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 161 [Ann. St. 1906, § 1993-2], now section 4634, Rev. St. 1909). To the giving of the demurrer the plaintiff objected, for the reason that said act was unconstitutional, and saved his exceptions, and at the same time plaintiff requested the court to give a counterinstruction, telling the jury to find for him, which was in words and...