Wilson v. Everett
| Decision Date | 13 April 1891 |
| Citation | 35 L.Ed. 286,11 S.Ct. 664,139 U.S. 616 |
| Parties | WILSON v. EVERETT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
T. M. Patterson and C. S. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
E. T. Wells and R. T. McNeal, for defendant in error.
This is an action at law, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado, by William S. Everett and James M. Robinson, against William J. Wilson, to recover the sum of $65,000 for alleged services performed by the plaintiffs at the request of the defendant, between June 1, 1883, and November 1, 1885, in and about the sale of certain lands and personal property. The bill of particulars alleged that the services were rendered at the request of the defendant in and about negotiating a sale by him to the New United States Cattle Ranch Company, Limited, of London, England, of the Circle ranch, located on the Republican river and its tributaries, in the states of Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska, with the appurtenances, and the cattle and horses which were, on or about December 14, 1883, upon the range belonging to or connected with the said Circle ranch, and the buildings and dwellings, and certain personal property belonging to or connected with the ranch, and the water-rights and other rights and privileges pertaining thereto. A supplemental bill of particulars averred that the services were rendered under an oral employment of the plaintiffs by the defendant by which they were to receive for their commissions, in the first instance, $5,000, and all that the property should sell for over $225,000; that this employment was made some time in the summer or fall of 1883, and reiterated and renewed in Chicago about February, 1884; that, by a subsequent arrangement, the defendant agreed to pay the further sum of $10,000; that the services were rendered and negotiations were carried on, partly by letter, partly by telegram, and partly orally, through agents of the plaintiffs in London, England; that it was impossible to state the time consumed in such correspondence and negotitions; that the same took place at intervals between the time of the first employment and the conclusion of the sale in the spring of 1884; that the plaintiff Everett made one trip from Chicago to Denver, in December, 1883, occupying about two weeks, the purpose of which was to confer with the defendant, and settle and adjust the terms of an agreement to be executed by the defendant and to be submitted to the proposed purchaser; that both of the plaintiffs made another trip to Denver, in February, 1884, remaining three weeks or thereabouts; that there were oral negotiations between the plaintiffs and the agents of the purchaser, both in Chicago and in Colorado, which extended over several weeks; and that the number of hours or days consumed, or the number of hours or days consumed in the negotiations in London, could not be stated. The answer of the defendant denied the allegations made. Before the trial, the plaintiff Robinson died, and the cause proceeded in the name of Everet as survivor, and was tried by a jury, which rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, on the 21st of January, 1887, for $10,000. On the next day, in the same term, the jurors being all present and in the jury-box, the following interrogatory, presented by the plaintiff, was asked by the court of them: 'Did you include in your verdict the plaintiff's claim for any excess over the sum of $225,000, denominated in the evidence the 'surplus' or 'profits?" To this the jurors by their foreman answered: 'Our understanding is that Mr. Wilson never received anything in excess of $225,000.' It was ordered by the court that this question and the answer thereto be entered of record, in connection with the verdict of the jury, for further consideration as occasion might arise. The defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied; and a judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $10,000 and costs, to review which the defendant has brought a writ of error.
The defendant specifies four parts of the charge of the court to the jury to which he excepted and of which he complains. His principal contention is that the plaintiff ought not to have recovered more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunray Oil Corporation v. Allbritton
...v. McDaniels, 107 U.S. 454, 2 S.Ct. 932, 27 L.Ed. 605; Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U.S. 22, 9 S.Ct. 696, 33 L.Ed. 110; Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616, 11 S.Ct. 664, 35 L.Ed. 286; New York, Lake Erie, & Western R. Co. v. Winter's Administrator, 143 U.S. 60, 12 S.Ct. 356, 36 L.Ed. 71; City of Linc......
-
Dimick v. Schiedt
...to grant or deny a new trial. New York C. & H. Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U.S. 24, 31, 25 L.Ed. 531; Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616, 621, 11 S.Ct. 664, 35 L.Ed. 286; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S. 436, 438, 14 S.Ct. 387, 38 L.Ed. 224. The other, which is implicit in the first, is that it has......
-
Johnson v. Ladd
... ... New York ... Life Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364, 33 S.Ct. 523, 57 L.Ed. 879, ... Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1029; Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S ... 616, 11 S.Ct. 664, 35 L.Ed. 286; Arkansas Valley Land, ... etc., Co. v. Mann, 130 U.S. 72, 9 S.Ct. 458, 32 ... ...
-
Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co
...of passion and prejudice, nevertheless refused, on the filing of a remittitur, to grant a new trial. 13 See Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616, 621, 11 S.Ct. 664, 35 L.Ed. 286; Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U.S. 44, 45, 31 S.Ct. 135, 55 L.Ed. 81; Southern Ry.-Carolina Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 8......