Bagley v. Foley

Citations

• 82 Wash. 222
• 144 P. 25
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1494

Syllabus

<p>Brokers — Commissions—-Performance — Procuring Cause — Evidence — Sufficiency. The evidence sufficiently supports findings that plaintiffs as brokers were the procuring cause of a sale, and had earned their commissions, where the testimony, although conflicting, tended to show that the property was first duly listed with another firm, and later with plaintiffs, for sale on stated terms, that the purchaser was introduced by plaintiffs who showed the property and procured a tentative agreement in writing, and the other firm then took up the negotiations and closed the sale upon substantially the same terms.</p> <p>Same — Action for Commissions — Instructions — “Procuring” Cause. In an action to recover a broker’s commission where the property had been listed with two firms, both of whom participated in the negotiations, instructions to the jury authorizing a recovery by the brokers who were the “procuring”- cause of the sale, are not open to objection in that they did not use the terms “efficient” or “efficient procuring” cause of the sale, as the phrases are substantially the same.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Requests. It is not error to refuse requested instructions that are covered in the general charge.</p>