Tyler v. Parr
Supreme Court of Missouri
Err07' to St. Louis Circuit Court. If the agent introduces or discloses the name of the purchaser, and such introduction or disclosure is the foundation upon which negotiations are begun and the sale effected, he will he entitled to commissions, and this too although in point of fact the sale may have been made by the owner. (Jones vs. Adler, 34 Md., 440; Lincoln vs. McClatcliie, 36 Conn., 136; Bell vs. Kaiser, 50 Mo., 150; Wilkinson vs. Martin, 8 Car. & P, 5.)
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was an action brought by plaintiff to recover of defendant commissions for procuring the exchange of real estate.
Plaintiff was a real estate agent, residing in Jefferson county, and the defendant owned a tract of land in that county, and desired to either sell it or exchange it for other property in St. Louis. Defendant accordingly placed this land in plaintiff’s hands to have a sale or exchange effected, and was to pay him a certain commission for his services; plaintiff advertised the laud for sale in his real estate advertiser, andfinal*250ly had a correspondence with one Hartman, who…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lincoln v. McClatchieSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Bell v. KaiserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Jones v. AdlerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
- Durkee v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
3Cited by63 opinions
- Gelatt v. RidgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Roberts v. MarkhamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Scott v. Patterson & ParkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- Sallee v. McMurryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Plant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.