Sprague v. Feldman
| Decision Date | 04 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 19283.,19283. |
| Parties | SPRAGUE v. FELDMAN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Jesse L. Sprague against Julius Feldman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Laughlin, Frumberg, Blodgett & Russell, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Joseph Boxerman, of St. Louis, for respondent.
The plaintiff, who is a real estate broker, brings this action to recover a commission for procuring a purchaser for defendant's hotel property in the city of St. Louis, The cause was tried to a jury, there was a verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
The evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that he entered into a contract with the defendant whereby the defendant employed plaintiff as his exclusive agent to sell the entire contents, together with the business, good will, and the unexpired lease, of the hotel property located at 715 Pine street, St. Louis, for the sum of $25,000, and agreed to pay plaintiff for his services in that behalf 5 per cent. commission on the sale price; that 5 per cent. commission on the sale price was the customary commission paid for, and was the reasonable worth of, such services; that, pursuant to said contract, the plaintiff procured a purchaser for said property, who was ready, willing, and able to purchase the same upon the terms authorized by said contract; that the purchaser gave plaintiff a cashier's check for $1,000 as earnest money, made payable to the purchaser and indorsed to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff promptly advised defendant that he had procured said purchaser, tendered him the cashier's check, and requested him to consummate the sale to said purchaser, but that he refused to sell to said purchaser; that a few days afterwards the plaintiff procured another purchaser for the property upon the terms authorized by said contract, and received a cashier's check from him for $1,000, made payable to the purchaser, and indorsed to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff tendered this check to the defendant, and requested him to consummate the sale to said purchaser, but that he refused to sell to said purchaser; that the reason given by defendant for refusing to sell to said purchasers was that he regarded the property as too good a proposition to sell at the price authorized by said contract. This proof was made by the testimony of plaintiff himself, and also by the testimony of the two purchasers, who were introduced by plaintiff as witnesses in his behalf. There was no proof that the plaintiff procured a written contract from either of the purchasers, or that either of them was produced to the defendant. The defendant, however, did not ask that written contracts be obtained from the purchasers or that the purchasers be produced. The defendant admitted that he entered into a contract with plaintiff for the sale of his property, but denied that plaintiff ever advised him that he had procured a purchaser for the same.
The plaintiff assigns error upon the action of the court in modifying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kyle v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...and distinguished. J. C. McCray & Son v. Pfost, 118 Mo.App. 672, 94 S.W. 998; Easton-Taylor Trust Co. v. Goodman, 43 S.W.2d 874; Sprague v. Feldman, 284 S.W. 155. (9) Respondent did not conceal his efforts. Appellants and purchaser got together and closed deal secretly. (10) Respondent was ......
- National Lumber & Creosoting Co. v. Burrows
-
Easton-Taylor Trust Co. v. Goodman, 21619.
...upon it to do more than procure a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy upon the terms fixed by the defendants. Sprague v. Feldman (Mo. App.) 284 S.W. 155, and cases Other suggestions are made by the plaintiff why the granting of the motion for new trial should be sustained, but it is u......