Harris v. Petersen

The defendants contend that there was no consideration for the note upon which judgment was entered because it appears upon the face of the note that the only *312consideration therefor was “commission for selling” certain real estate described therein. This contention is based on the fact that sec. 240.10 of the Statutes as construed in Hale v. Kreisel, 194 Wis. 271, 215 N. W. 227, deprives a real-estate broker of the right to recover for services rendered under a parol contract to pay commissions.

The plaintiff in fact performed services which resulted in a contract to sell the property of the…