Sidebotham v. Spengler

• Citation: 154 Mo. App. 11,133 S.W. 101
• Parties: SIDEBOTHAM v. SPENGLER.
• Decision Date: 30 December 1910
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

133 S.W. 101

154 Mo. A. 11

SIDEBOTHAM v. SPENGLER.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 30, 1910.

Rehearing Denied January 12, 1911.

1. BROKERS (§ 56)—RIGHT TO COMMISSIONS.

If a real estate broker, through his exertions in introducing the purchaser to the owner, procures a sale of land, he is entitled to his commission, though the final negotiations are conducted without his knowledge by the principal directly with the purchaser.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1010) — REVIEW — FINDINGS.

Findings of fact by the trial court are conclusive on appeal, if supported by substantial evidence.

3. BROKERS (§ 86)—ACTION FOR COMPENSATION—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence held to support a finding that a broker's agency included certain land in question, and that he was the procuring cause of the sale thereof.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt G. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by John S. Sidebotham against F. A. Spengler. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. A. & L. A. Wind, for appellant. Frank A. Thompson, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This appeal is wholly without merit. The suit is one by a real estate agent for his commission, on the theory that he effected a sale of 3 acres of land for defendant and was the procuring cause as to the sale of an additional 3.723 acres. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the finding and judgment were for plaintiff, from which judgment defendant prosecutes the appeal.

There is but one question presented for review, and that relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. It appears defendant owned a tract of land near the city of St. Louis, and employed plaintiff, a real estate agent, to sell the same or parcels thereof. A written authority was given plaintiff by defendant, which authorized him to negotiate the sales involved here. Plaintiff procured a purchaser in the spring of the year for 3 acres of defendant's land, in the person of one Mr. Funck, who was preparing to go into the lumber business. The agreed price was $3,000 per acre. A contract of purchase was duly entered into with Mr. Funck pertaining to this parcel of ground, and plaintiff endeavored to persuade Funck to take more land, but he declined for the time being. Though Mr. Funck desired the additional ground, which he subsequently purchased directly from defendant, he did not desire at that time to invest additional means therein until his lumber business was further established. Though Funck was given possession thereof, the sale of the 3 acres included in the contract was not consummated immediately by passing title from defendant to him, for the reason some proceeding was required in the probate court to divest the interest of a minor. The matter continued open for about six months, while defendant was engaged in perfecting the title, and in the interim plaintiff continued in his effort to persuade Mr. Funck to take the additional ground, which he subsequently purchased directly from defendant. The evidence tends to prove that during this period plaintiff, through one of his agents, Wagley, introduced Mr. Funck, the purchaser, to defendant, and the testimony of Funck is that plaintiff persisted in his efforts to sell him the additional parcel of ground thereafter. During the summer Mr. Funck made a business arrangement whereby he associated others with him in business and thus obtained additional means, and plaintiff continued thereafter, as before, in urging him to buy the additional parcel of ground; but the sale was not effected until later, when defendant himself interposed without the knowledge of plaintiff. Finally, in October, defendant, having perfected the title to the 3-acre tract, which was...