Veale v. Green
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court.— Hon. H. G. Timmonds, Judge. (1) The letters of defendant, marked exhibits “ C’’ and “D” were not admissible in evidence in this case. These letters were written from two to four years before the date of the contract sued on, if it be conceded such contract was ever entered into.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court.— Hon. H. G. Timmonds, Judge. (1) The letters of defendant, marked exhibits “ C’’ and “D” were not admissible in evidence in this case. These letters were written from two to four years before the date of the contract sued on, if it be conceded such contract was ever entered into. (2) There is no substantial testimony in this record tending to support the allegation in plaintiff’s petition, that, “thereafter plaintiff in pursuance of such contract and agreement between plaintiff and defendant, did procure a purchaser for said land . . . and was instrumental in…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This action is to recover commission alleged to be due plaintiff for selling a section of land in Barton county for defendant. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court.
*184The petition declares on a contract without naming the date of such contract. But it states its terms to be that if plaintiff would procure a purchaser for the land at twenty dollars an acre defendant would pay him a commission of two and one-half per cent of the total purchase price. It then alleges that in pursuance of such contract, plaintiff did procure a purchaser and that he was instrumental in bringing about…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hammond v. BeesonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. Missouri Fire Brick Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Baird v. LoescherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Corum v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908