Wray v. Carpenter

• Citation: 16 Colo. 271,27 P. 248
• Parties: WRAY v. CARPENTER.
• Decision Date: 29 April 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

27 P. 248

16 Colo. 271

WRAY v. CARPENTER.

Supreme Court of Colorado

April 29, 1891

Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county; VICTOR A. ELLIOTT Judge.

Long & Johnson, for appellant.

Robt. Given, for appellee.

HELM C.J.

Appellee brought suit in the court below against appellant, and recovered $1,000 as commission for services rendered in procuring the sale of certain realty in Nebraska. The admitted facts show that appellant placed the property in the hands of appellee for sale at a certain figure, allowing him the sum recovered in case of success; that appellee found Corregen, the alleged purchaser, and introduced him to appellant; also, that negotiations between Corregen and appellant were carried on for a considerable period.

The rule contended for by appellant is undoubtedly correct, viz that when, under circumstances such as are here presented the agent has introduced to his principal an acceptable purchaser, willing and financially able to buy on the terms named by the principal, he is entitled to his commission even though, through the fault of the principal, the sale does not actually take place. Buckingham v. Harris, 10 Colo. 455, 15 P. 817, and cases cited. But appellee did not, in the court below, base his recovery upon this rule of law; nor does he do so here. His contention is that the sale was actually consummated. Appellant vigorously combats this contention. He asserts that the negotiations between him and Corregen entirely failed, because Corregen proved to be financially irresponsible; and upon this controversy the case, so far as the evidence is concerned, will be determined. The proofs offered by appellee to establish the sale are not perfectly satisfactory. If sitting as a trial court without the aid of a jury, we might hesitate before finding affirmatively upon this question of fact; but the record is not wholly devoid of evidence to sustain the verdict returned. The testimony of both appellee and the witness Davis tends to show a completed sale to Corregen. It is strongly contradicted by appellant and Corregen; and there are circumstances corroborating, to some extent, the position of appellant in this regard. But we cannot say that the preponderance of evidence in appellant's favor is so great as to warrant our interference with the verdict of the jury, or the judgment pronounced thereon by the trial court, who also met the witnesses face to face. If the sale to Corregen were actually completed, appellant must be held to have...