Lewis v. Popejoy

Indiana Court of Appeals

Lewis v. Popejoy

123 N.E. 646, 70 Ind. App. 590, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 62

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 1919

DocketNo. 9,954

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.E. 646 (Lewis v. Popejoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Popejoy, 123 N.E. 646, 70 Ind. App. 590, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 62 (Ind. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, J.

Appellants owned a farm of eighty acres, which they desired to exchange for a smaller one. They engaged appellees, who were real estate brokers, to find an owner of a small farm who would exchange farms with appellants. The only question for our determination is: Must contracts of this character to be in writing in order to bind the owner of the [591]*591real estate for the payment of a commission? If so, this canse mnst be reversed; otherwise affirmed.

It was held in Elmore v. Brinneman (1919), ante 222, 123 N. E. 248, that §7463 Burns 1914, Acts 1913 p. 638, applied to a contract of this character, and that the broker could not maintain an action for his commission unless the contract was in writing.

The court erred in its conclusions of law. Cause reversed, with direction to the court to restate its conclusions of law in favor of appellants, and to render judgment accordingly.

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

McMahan, J.

Appellants owned a farm of eighty acres, which they desired to exchange for a smaller one. They engaged appellees, who were real estate brokers, to find an owner of a small farm who would exchange farms with appellants. The only question for our determination is: Must contracts of this character to be in writing in order to bind the owner of the [591]*591real estate for the payment of a commission? If so, this canse mnst be reversed; otherwise affirmed.

It was held in Elmore v. Brinneman (1919), ante 222, 123 N. E. 248, that §7463 Burns 1914, Acts 1913 p. 638, applied to a contract of this character, and that the broker could not maintain an action for his commission unless the contract was in writing.

The court erred in its conclusions of law. Cause reversed, with direction to the court to restate its conclusions of law in favor of appellants, and to render judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.E. 646, 70 Ind. App. 590, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-popejoy-indctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack