Hurxthal v. Dalby
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circnit Court. — Mon. E. C. Mall, Special Judge. (1) Even though a broker brings the parties together and starts them to negotiating, but the property the broker was authorized to exchange could not be exchanged and never was made, and a variance both in property and price was made in the deal that was consummated, and the broker had nothing to do with such deal and did not even know it was under consideration, then he neither found the customer nor made…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circnit Court. — Mon. E. C. Mall, Special Judge. (1) Even though a broker brings the parties together and starts them to negotiating, but the property the broker was authorized to exchange could not be exchanged and never was made, and a variance both in property and price was made in the deal that was consummated, and the broker had nothing to do with such deal and did not even know it was under consideration, then he neither found the customer nor made the exchange, and is not entitled to a commission. Tooker v. Duckworth, 107 Mo. App. 231; Duncan v. Hills, 155 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, P. J.
Plaintiff is a real estate agent and he claims to have traded a stock of groceries owned by defendant for a farm, and that defendant employed him to do so, but refuses to pay him a commission for *540the service. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff.
The evidence in plaintiff’s behalf tended to show that defendant authorized him to procuré a trade of his, defendant’s, grocery store in Kansas City for a farm. That shortly afterwards he saw a farm in Oklahoma advertised for trade by one Middleton, an agent in Kansas City. That he wrote to defendant that possibly a trade could be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Perry v. EdelenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914