Brokers — Real estate commissions — Evidence — Sufficiency — Case for jury.
In an action by a real estate broker to recover commissions earned in the sale of real estate, it appeared that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to sell his property. It also appeared that the plaintiff having seen an advertisement of one desiring to purchase a property similar to that of the defendant, called the attention of the advertiser to such property. Subsequently a sale having been made the plaintiff claimed his commission.
At the trial the court submitted to the jury the question of whether or not the sale was the direct result of plaintiff's efforts.
Held, that the disputed issue was properly submitted and a verdict for the plaintiff should be sustained.
Argued October 30, 1924.
PER CURIAM, February 27, 1925:
Every disputed question in this case was fairly referred to the jury, and it was instructed several times that before the plaintiff could recover, he must convince the jury from his evidence that it was through his efforts that the sale was made; in other words, that he was the direct, immediate and efficient cause of the sale. The motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was urged upon a single allegation of error, — that under all the evidence in the case, the verdict should be for the defendant.
We find no reversible error in the record and affirm the judgment as entered on the verdict.