Cole v. Crump
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Wasliington Circuit Court. — lion. E. M. Bearing, Judge. There is no inconsistency or conflict between instructions given on behalf of appellant and .respondents. And under the allegations in appellant’s petition hereinbefore quoted, and the evidence, instruction No. 1 given on behalf of respondents correctly declared the law. Church v. Railroad, 1191 Mo. 203; Herman v. Compton Hill Imp. Co., 58 Mo. App\ 480; Baker v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 533.
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is a suit by a real estate agent for his commissions. The finding and judgment were for defendants, and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal.
Defendants owned 120. acres of land which they desired to sell, and plaintiff was engaged in blocking parcels of mineral land together and selling it for mining purposes to those engaged in such business. It appears that defendants employed plaintiff by a written contract to sell their lands to one Gorge J. Cole, who was engaged in the mining business in St. Francois county. By the terms of the contract of employment, defendants agreed to pay plaintiff…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tyler v. ParrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Bell v. KaiserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Goffe v. GibsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Lane v. CunninghamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Weisels-Gerhart Real Estate Co. v. EpsteinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Westerman v. Peer Investment Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1917
- Everson v. PhelpsOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Fry v. DoyleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
- Ross v. MajorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Coffman v. Dyas Realty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.