Hildahl v. Seim

South Dakota Supreme Court

Hildahl v. Seim

190 N.W. 782, 46 S.D. 81, 1922 S.D. LEXIS 145

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1922

DocketFile No. 5078

StatusPublished

This text of 190 N.W. 782 (Hildahl v. Seim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hildahl v. Seim, 190 N.W. 782, 46 S.D. 81, 1922 S.D. LEXIS 145 (S.D. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

GATES, R. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the circuit court for plaintiff and1 an order denying new trial. The case was begun and tried in the municipal court" of Sioux Falls with the like judgment. The action is for the recovery of a real estate broker’s commission. . Defendant had listed the property in question with plaintiff upon a $200 commission, but at that time [82]*82he notified plaintiff that another person was dickering for it. Plaintiff produced a committee of three, who contemplated -buying the property as a residence for the new president of Augustana 'College. Price and terms were substantially agreed to, but defendant agreed to give the committee until Saturday night to decide whether it would buy. On Saturday morning defendant with his other purchaser appeared before one of the committee. According to one version of the facts defendant was notified that the committee was ready to close the deal before he gave notice that he had1 already sold the property. According' to the other version the acceptance by the committee was not until it h-ad been notified by defendant of the other sale. This was a question for the jury to determine. .'We cannot say that there was not evidence tending to show that plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, able, and willing to take the property at defendant’s terms.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Note — Reported in 190 N. W. 782. See American Key-Numbered Digest, Brokers, Key-No. 88(3), 9 C. J. Sec. 129.

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

GATES, R. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the circuit court for plaintiff and1 an order denying new trial. The case was begun and tried in the municipal court" of Sioux Falls with the like judgment. The action is for the recovery of a real estate broker’s commission. . Defendant had listed the property in question with plaintiff upon a $200 commission, but at that time [82]*82he notified plaintiff that another person was dickering for it. Plaintiff produced a committee of three, who contemplated -buying the property as a residence for the new president of Augustana 'College. Price and terms were substantially agreed to, but defendant agreed to give the committee until Saturday night to decide whether it would buy. On Saturday morning defendant with his other purchaser appeared before one of the committee. According to one version of the facts defendant was notified that the committee was ready to close the deal before he gave notice that he had1 already sold the property. According' to the other version the acceptance by the committee was not until it h-ad been notified by defendant of the other sale. This was a question for the jury to determine. .'We cannot say that there was not evidence tending to show that plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, able, and willing to take the property at defendant’s terms.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Note — Reported in 190 N. W. 782. See American Key-Numbered Digest, Brokers, Key-No. 88(3), 9 C. J. Sec. 129.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W. 782, 46 S.D. 81, 1922 S.D. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hildahl-v-seim-sd-1922.