Hiller v. Betts

This law action was brought by appellee, to recover of appellant, her agent, $2,692.50, with 6 per cent interest from and after the 22d day of June, 1923, as the sum wrongfully retained by said representative from a sale of real estate. There ivas a trial to a jury, resulting in a verdict for appellee.

The three principal errors alleged are that: (1) Appellee was not the real party in interest; (2) allegations of the claim in its general meaning were unproved; and (3) value of the property retained was not shown bj*- competent evidence.

I. In January, 1914, appellee’s husband, Archie E. Hiller,…