Bell v. Kaiser

50 Mo. 150
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 50 Mo. 150 (Bell v. Kaiser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. Kaiser, 50 Mo. 150 (Mo. 1872).

Opinion

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought by plaintiff to recover commissions for selling defendant’s real estate. The petition stated that, through the instrumentality of plaintiff and his exertions in that behalf, defendant’s house and lot were sold for a certain amount, and commissions at the usual and ordinary rate were demanded. The answer did not deny that the house and lot were sold for the sum specified in the. petition, but denied that defendant employed plaintiff to sell the same, and denied that plaintiff did make the sale. There was a trial before a jury, and verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

The court, for the plaintiff, instructed the jury that if they believed from the evideuce that the defendant employed plaintiff to sell the house and lot in question for him, and that plaintiff was a real estate agent, and that by his advertisements and exertions he procured a purchaser for the house and lot, to whom the same was sold, then plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendant the usual and ordinary commissions for effecting the sale.

Defendant asked for an instruction to the effect that if the jury believed from the evidence that the defendant sold the house and lot mentioned in the petition, and that the same was not sold through the instrumentality of the plaintiff, then the finding should be for the defendant. This instruction was refused.

There was no necessity for defendant’s instruction, and the court committed no error in refusing it. The instruction given [151]*151for the plaintiff was sufficiently explicit and covered the whole case. It was immaterial that defendant sold the property and concluded the bargain. If, after the same was placed in plaintiff’s hands, the sale was brought about or procured by his advertisements and exertions, he was entitled to his,commissions.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cornet & Zeibig, Inc. v. 430 Withers Realty Co.
415 S.W.2d 751 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1967)
Edward F. Higgins v. D. M. Kitterman
257 F.2d 861 (Eighth Circuit, 1958)
Taylor v. Vestal
304 S.W.2d 820 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1957)
Barnum v. Hutchens Metal Products
255 S.W.2d 807 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1953)
Earls and Golladay v. Alsup
176 S.W.2d 830 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1944)
Hill v. Iglehart
125 A. 843 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1924)
Cole v. Crump
156 S.W. 769 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Park v. Culver
154 S.W. 806 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Lane v. Cunningham
153 S.W. 525 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
Corum v. Arnold
137 S.W. 622 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Weisels-Gerhart Real Estate Co. v. Epstein
137 S.W. 326 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Keele v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
131 S.W. 730 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Shober v. Dean
102 P. 323 (Montana Supreme Court, 1909)
Bassford v. West
101 S.W. 610 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Morgan v. Keller
92 S.W. 75 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Sallee v. McMurry
88 S.W. 157 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Smith v. Truitt
80 S.W. 686 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
McCormack v. Henderson
75 S.W. 171 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Lipscomb & Russ v. Cole
81 Mo. App. 53 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Mo. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-kaiser-mo-1872.