Burd v. Webster
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for St. Croix county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge. About the 1st day of February, 1903, the plaintiff, who bad been engaged in the real-estate business at New Richmond, St. Croix county, Wisconsin, made arrangements with the defendant to come to Dane county to live and to engage in the real-estate business in Dane county as agent of defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for St. Croix county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge. About the 1st day of February, 1903, the plaintiff, who bad been engaged in the real-estate business at New Richmond, St. Croix county, Wisconsin, made arrangements with the defendant to come to Dane county to live and to engage in the real-estate business in Dane county as agent of defendant. By this arrangement plaintiff was to have the exclusive agency for defendant of certain portions of Dane county and was to have a commission of two per cent, on all sales made therein through defendant’s…
1Opinion of the CourtSiebeciceb, J.
Plaintiff contends, as to the first cause of action, that the testimony adduced warrants the inference that the sale of the Humiston farm to Parman' was accomplished through defendant’s agency.' There seems to be no dispute as to the terms of the agreement under which plaintiff claims the right to a commission on the sale. Under its terms plaintiff was entitled to a commission if the sale was effected through defendant’s' agency. ■ The trial court held that the evidence furnished no ground, in any reasonable view of it, for an inference that the sale of the farm to Par-man was effected…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Coon v. St. Paul Park Realty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Sexton v. GoodrichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Buroff v. BergmannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
- Combes v. AyresCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Moore v. BentsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920