Carstens v. House

Citations

• 96 Wash. 50
• 164 P. 770

Syllabus

<p>Brokers — Commissions — Actions — Failure of Proof. Failure of proof to support a broker’s claims for commissions cannot be predicated upon the fact that the sales were made in the broker’s own name, where there was a special reason therefor and the principal knew that the sales were being so made.</p> <p>Same — Commissions — Actions — Defenses — Evidence. Where brokers made sales in good faith in compliance with their contract, and the principal failed to consummate the sale for reasons wholly apart from the financial ability of the purchasers, the brokers are not called upon to prove the financial ability on the part of the purchasers.</p> <p>Evidence — To Vary Written Contract — Explaining Trade Term. Where a broker’s sales contract refers to the quantity as so many “cars,” it is competent to prove that cars of merchandise of that character means to the trade approximately 30,000 pounds.</p> <p>Pleading — Bill of Particulars — Defects — Admissibility of Evidence. WThere a bill of particulars fully informed counsel of every fact, although it was defective and the account rendered was not as full as demanded, it is not error to admit evidence of the account, in the absence of any request for a further account, under Rem. Code, § 284, providing that items of account not stated in the bill shall be excluded and that in case the account is defective the court may order a further account.</p>