Veale v. Green

• Decision Date: 07 March 1904
• Citation: 105 Mo. App. 182,79 S.W. 731
• Parties: VEALE v. GREEN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

79 S.W. 731

105 Mo. App. 182

VEALE v. GREEN.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 7, 1904.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT—AUTHORITY OF AGENT —COMMISSION—EVIDENCE.

1. In an action for a commission for selling land for the defendant, evidence held to support a finding that the plaintiff had a continuous permissive authority to sell defendant's land, running up to the sale, and that he continued his efforts to sell it to the person who finally purchased directly from the defendant, up to the time of the sale.

2. In an action for commission for selling defendant's land, correspondence between the parties, leading up to a letter in which the defendant offered a commission for making the sale, was admissible in evidence.

3. Evidence that the plaintiff continued from time to time to make efforts to sell the defendant's land, after defendant offered him a commission for making the sale, was sufficient to sustain a finding that he accepted the offer.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barton County; H. C. Timmonds, Judge.

Action by Joseph P. Veale against L. R. Green. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Thurman, Wray & Timmonds, for appellant. Cole, Burnett & Moore, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This action is to recover commission alleged to be due plaintiff for selling a section of land in Barton county for defendant. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court.

The petition declares on a contract, without naming the date of such contract. But it states its terms to be that, if plaintiff would procure a purchaser for the land at $20 an acre, defendant would pay him a commission of 2½ per cent. of the total purchase price. It then alleges that, in pursuance of such contract, plaintiff did procure a purchaser, and that he was instrumental in bringing about the sale.

The evidence in plaintiff's behalf tended to show that, beginning back in 1893, defendant, who lived in Illinois, made plaintiff his agent to rent the land and also to sell it, though no price was named, and the amount of compensation was not agreed upon. In that year a man named McClanahan was renting some land of plaintiff, and plaintiff rented the defendant's land to him, having in view, as he testified, the idea of finally selling it to him. That when the defendant came to see plaintiff in Barton county, in 1894, he expressed the opinion that McClanahan was too much "of a boy." But that in a day or two he came back to plaintiff and said to him that he felt better suited with his selection of McClanahan, and that he had been informed that McClanahan would buy the place before he left it. Plaintiff then said to defendant that that was the reason he put him there, and that, if defendant did not sell the place before McClanahan got ready or able to buy, he would sell it to him. Plaintiff and McClanahan talked of the latter buying the place from time to time. And so did plaintiff and defendant, the latter frequently inquiring if plaintiff thought McClanahan would buy the place. This continued on up to February 13, 1898, the date of defendant's letter to plaintiff about his affairs in this state, in which, among other things about other matters of business between them, he stated that, if plaintiff could sell the place for $20 per acre, he would give him 2½ per cent. commission. Finally, in about three years after the receipt of the letter just referred to, McClanahan went to Illinois, without plaintiff's knowledge, and bought the land of defendant direct for $20 per acre. It seems that defendant was in Barton county when the sale was consummated, and that after it was all settled he remarked to McClanahan that he would "now go over and pay Joe [plaintiff], and tell him I don't need him any longer." Defendant, however, contends that that remark referred to pay for other business plaintiff had done...