Hill v. Dakin
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Hamilton District Court. — Hon. C. G. Lee, Judge. Action to recover a commission for finding a person who would buy or trade for lands listed with or owned by the defendant. It is alleged that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $1 per acre for any such purchaser; that he found and procured one with whom defendant made an exchange of lands ; and that he is entitled to the sum of $1 per acre, or $320, as his commission.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Hamilton District Court. — Hon. C. G. Lee, Judge. Action to recover a commission for finding a person who would buy or trade for lands listed with or owned by the defendant. It is alleged that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $1 per acre for any such purchaser; that he found and procured one with whom defendant made an exchange of lands ; and that he is entitled to the sum of $1 per acre, or $320, as his commission. The defendant’s answer was a general denial,'and upon the issues joined the case went to a jury, re-’ suiting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtDeemer, J.
The issues have been sufficiently stated, and the case turns largely upon the sufficiency of the testimony to support the verdict, although some legal propositions are incidentally involved.
1. agency: action for commission pleading and proof. It is fundamental, of course, that plaintiff must prove his case as made in his petition. That is, he must establish the contract as pleaded, show the performance thereof by him, and a breach thereof by the defendant, and the measure of his recovery as alleged.
*1052. Appeal : questions not raised below. *104Defendant’s counsel strenuously argue that this the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rounds v. AleeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Murphy v. HiltibridleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
3Cited by2 opinions
- Reynor v. MackrillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Kinney v. EckenbergerOregon Supreme Court · 1915