Simpson v. Blewitt
| Decision Date | 10 November 1913 |
| Citation | 160 S.W. 1087,110 Ark. 87 |
| Parties | SIMPSON v. BLEWITT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Calvin T. Cotham, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
S.W.Leslie for appellant.
1. A real estate broker is entitled to his commission where he was the procuring cause of the sale of the property to another. 89 Ark. 203.
2. Plaintiff must allege and prove (1) employment as agent to sell, and (2) a sale on terms fixed by the principal. 139 Am St. Rep. 232.
M. S. Cobb, for appellee.
1. Where there is any legal evidence to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed by this court. 85 Ark. 193.
2. General objections to instructions are not sufficient.
3. All the allegations of the complaint were proved, and there is no question of "accident and surprise" in the trial.
The plaintiff, R. H. Blewitt, instituted this action against defendant, R. A. Simpson, to recover amount alleged to have been earned as commission on an exchange made by defendant with another party of some of his lands. Plaintiff claimed that a contract was entered into between him and defendant concerning the sale or exchange of the lands, and that he earned the commission according to the terms of the contract. The allegations of plaintiff in his complaint concerning the transactions are that "he entered into a contract with the defendant, R. A. Simpson, in which plaintiff was to secure parties to or through whom a sale or exchange of certain property * * * could be effected; that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a commission of 2 1/2 per cent on $ 20,000 of this amount in the event plaintiff procured the parties and a sale or exchange of said property was made," and that plaintiff "procured the parties to or through whom the sale or exchange of defendant's property was made."
The defendant answered, denying that he had agreed to pay plaintiff a commission on the sale or exchange of his property, or that a sale or exchange was made through any efforts of the plaintiff.
An issue of fact was squarely presented in the pleadings as to the terms of the alleged contract between plaintiff and defendant and whether the former had performed the service in accordance with the terms of the contract so as to entitle him to a commission on the exchange which defendant made of his lands with another party.
Defendant exchanged his lands with a man named Budd, and the trade was brought about through the efforts of one Epps, who brought the defendant and Budd together for the trade.
Plaintiff testified that defendant's contract with him was that if he (plaintiff) should find a purchaser or one to exchange with, or procure some one else to do so, he should be entitled to a commission, and that Epps negotiated the trade for the exchange with Budd at his (plaintiff's) request.
Defendant admitted in his testimony that he had agreed to pay a commission on any sale or trade negotiated by plaintiff, but denied that he had agreed to pay any commission on a sale or exchange negotiated by any one else. He testified that the exchange with Budd was brought about by Epps, and that this did not fall within the terms of his agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial