Bertelson v. Hoffman

Citations

• 35 Wash. 459
• 77 P. 801
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 470

Syllabus

<p>Brokers — Action to Recover Commission — Disclosing Identity of Purchaser — Complaint—Sufficiency. A complaint in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission is not demurrable because of failure to allege that tbe agent disclosed to tbe defendant the identity of tbe purchaser, where it does not appear that be refused to do so, or that tbe defendant made demand therefor, or suffered any injury from tbe fact of concealment.</p> <p>Trial — Verdict—Conflicting Evidence. Tbe verdict of a jury will not be disturbed upon conflicting testimony, when supported by substantial evidence.</p> <p>Brokers — Action to Recover Commission — Evidence—Materiality of Other Deals. Where, in an action to recover commissions, plaintiff was asked on cross-examination what other property be bad ever been asked to sell for defendant, besides that involved in tbe suit, an objection on tbe ground of immateriality was properly sustained.</p> <p>Same — Value of Land. Evidence that tbe actual value of property is §20,000, and its rental value $1,500, is not admissible as tending to show the improbability of an agreement to sell for $18,000, since tbe disparity is not Sufficient to warrant this class of evidence.</p> <p>Same — Customary Commissions — Pleading and Proof — Instructions. It was proper to refuse to instruct that under tbe pleadings plaintiff could not recover unless tbe jury should find an express promise by defendant to pay tbe commission, where tbe allegations of tbe complaint are predicated upon both an express promise and an agreement to pay tbe usual and customary commission for like sales, and evidence was received in support thereof, it not appearing that defendant objected to tbe complaint on tbe ground that it alleged duplicate causes of action.</p>