Terry v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 20 June 1901
• Citation: 86 N.W. 557,111 Wis. 122
• Parties: TERRY v. REYNOLDS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

111 Wis. 122

86 N.W. 557

TERRY

v.REYNOLDS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 20, 1901.

Appeal from superior, court, Milwaukee county; John C. Ludwig, Judge.

Action by Frank T. Terry against Maggie J. Reynolds. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.J. W. Bass, for appellant.

R. B. Mallary, for respondent.

CASSODAY, C. J.

This action is to recover $532.50, as commissions under a written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant made in September, 1897, and which reads as follows: “For $1.00 and othervaluable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I agree to give F. T. Terry a commission of (3) three per cent. on sale of my farm, or any part of it, at a price accepted by me (117.32 acres). This commission only to be paid in case of sale to party to whom said Terry has offered the property. M. M. J. Reynolds.” The complaint alleges, in effect, that in pursuance of that agreement the plaintiff, immediately after making the contract, at the defendant's request, entered upon such service to assist the defendant in selling her property at a price acceptable to her; that he offered the farm, or portions thereof, for sale to divers persons, including Theodore L. Hansen, and in the latter part of 1897, or early in the year 1898, urged him to buy the farm, or a portion thereof, and that July 8, 1898, the defendant did sell and convey a portion of the farm so offered to him for $17,750, which was the amount Hansen paid therefor. The answer admits the making of the written contract and the sale and conveyance to Hansen as alleged, but insists that such sale was in no way effected or consummated through or by the agency or efforts of the plaintiff, and alleges that it was effected solely through the agency and efforts of A. and E. Conrad, in Milwaukee. At the close of the testimony the court granted a nonsuit, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff brings this appeal.

The court properly excluded testimony tending to prove that, soon after the plaintiff made the contract with the defendant, he interviewed nine or ten persons in respect to selling to them the farm, or some part of it, and that he secured an offer from other parties to pay a greater amount than paid by Hansen, but which offers were rejected by the defendant. Under the peculiar wording of the contract, the defendant was only to pay the commission “on sale of” the “farm, or any part of it, at a price accepted by” her, and to...