Foltz v. Conrad Realty Co.

Citations

• 131 Va. 496
• 109 S.E. 463
• 1921 Va. LEXIS 41

Syllabus

<p>1. Motion for Judgment—Pleading—Sufficiency of Notice.—A procedure by motion for judgment is destitute of formalities. All that is required in the notice is to give the opposing party a sufficient idea of the grounds of action relied on, and to state a good cause of action. Great informality is allowed, but the notice must state a case, and must have the requisite certainty.</p> <p>2. Notice of Motion for Judgment—Pleading—Setting Out Contract.—It is not necessary to set out in a notice of motion for judgment, in haec verba, the instrument relied upon, but only so much of the same as is essential to plaintiff’s case may be set out according to its legal effect.</p> <p>3. Notice of Motion for Judgment—Sufficiency of Motion—Performance of Contract.—Objection that a notice of motion for judgment was insufficent in that it showed on its face that plaintiff did not perform the contract alleged was not well taken. Recovery is not dependent in all cases upon a complete performance of a contract. The defendant’s misconduct may render a complete performance impossible. In such a case the party not in fault is entitled to recover damages. This will be a recovery growing out of the contract.</p> <p>4. Notice of Motion for Judgment—Compensation of Real Estate Brokers—Sufficiency of Motion—Bill of Particulars—Case at Bar.—A notice of motion for judgment afforded the following details: (1) That the plaintiff claimed a specific sum of money; (2) that it was due as compensation for selling certain lots for the defendant; (3) that the work was done under, and pursuant to, a designated contract between the parties, giving the legal effect of that portion of the contract relating to compensation for sales made by the plaintiff.</p> <p>Held: That if more details were required, a bill of particulars should have been demanded.</p> <p>5. Real Estate Brokers—Contract—Conflict.—In an action by a broker for compensation, defendant insisted that two clauses of the contract were conflicting