Seifert v. Mueller

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Seifert v. Mueller

146 N.W. 787, 156 Wis. 629, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 155

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedApril 9, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 N.W. 787 (Seifert v. Mueller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seifert v. Mueller, 146 N.W. 787, 156 Wis. 629, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 155 (Wis. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Bashes, J.

This action was brought to recover a commission on the exchange of real estate. The plaintiff claimed to have been employed to make the sale or exchange by one Richter, the agent of the defendant. The plaintiff recovered ••and defendant appeals. The defendant urges in this court (1) that Richter had no authority to employ plaintiff in her behalf, and (2) that plaintiff agreed to accept and receive as his compensation a lot in the city of Racine. Richter and ■one Coogan testified that such was the agreement and that a deed was duly tendered in pursuance thereof. Plaintiff denied making such an agreement. The trial court did not pass upon this conflict in testimony, but held that the contract, if made, was void under the statute of frauds (sec. 2304, Stats.), and allowed a recovery on quantum meruit for the value of "the services performed.

1. The pleadings settle the first question raised. The complaint alleged that the defendant, by her agent Richter, “placed with plaintiff . . . for plaintiff to sell or exchange for her for other property, a farm” in Waukesha county, etc. 'This averment was admitted in the answer. It was shown without dispute that plaintiff did procure an exchange of defendant's farm for other property.

2. Under the decision in Koch v. Williams, 82 Wis. 186, 52 N. W. 257, the parol agreement to pay for the service rendered by conveying real estate was void and plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of his service.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Bashes, J.

This action was brought to recover a commission on the exchange of real estate. The plaintiff claimed to have been employed to make the sale or exchange by one Richter, the agent of the defendant. The plaintiff recovered ••and defendant appeals. The defendant urges in this court (1) that Richter had no authority to employ plaintiff in her behalf, and (2) that plaintiff agreed to accept and receive as his compensation a lot in the city of Racine. Richter and ■one Coogan testified that such was the agreement and that a deed was duly tendered in pursuance thereof. Plaintiff denied making such an agreement. The trial court did not pass upon this conflict in testimony, but held that the contract, if made, was void under the statute of frauds (sec. 2304, Stats.), and allowed a recovery on quantum meruit for the value of "the services performed.

1. The pleadings settle the first question raised. The complaint alleged that the defendant, by her agent Richter, “placed with plaintiff . . . for plaintiff to sell or exchange for her for other property, a farm” in Waukesha county, etc. 'This averment was admitted in the answer. It was shown without dispute that plaintiff did procure an exchange of defendant's farm for other property.

2. Under the decision in Koch v. Williams, 82 Wis. 186, 52 N. W. 257, the parol agreement to pay for the service rendered by conveying real estate was void and plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of his service.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 N.W. 787, 156 Wis. 629, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seifert-v-mueller-wis-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack