Madler v. Pozorski
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: J. C. Ludwig, Judge. Plaintiff and defendant lived in Milwaukee, and were engaged in buying and selling real estate. Robert 0. Thielman,. who' owned certain property in Milwaukee, lived at Tomahawk, Wisconsin.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: J. C. Ludwig, Judge. Plaintiff and defendant lived in Milwaukee, and were engaged in buying and selling real estate. Robert 0. Thielman,. who' owned certain property in Milwaukee, lived at Tomahawk, Wisconsin. Plaintiff at the time in question was acting as agent of Thielman for the purpose of collecting rents from this property, with authority to attend to necessary repairs- and alterations, and with the further understanding that Thielman desired to sell the property-and in case plaintiff could obtain an offer therefor it…
1Opinion of the CourtKeewiN, J.
1. It is claimed by counsel for appellant that the court erred in refusing to admit testimony as to plaintiff’s attempt to get hold of defendant’s customer. The contract set up in the complaint was that the defendant should have the right to offer the property for sale and make a sale of the same, and that the profits should be equally divided, but it does not appear that the exclusive agency was transferred to defendant. The evidence offered tended to show that plaintiff was endeavoring to make a sale, and this was not inconsistent with his contract with defendant. Therefore exclusion of.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mann v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Mann v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921