122 Mo. App. 268 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1907
This action was instituted to recover a commission for procuring a purchaser for some real estate owned by defendant in the city of Sedalia, where plaintiffs reside. The judgment in the trial court was for plaintiffs.
There was correspondence by letter and telegrams between plaintiff's and defendant in reference to the property, its condition, its rental and its sale. Much of the detail of the evidence is unnecessary to an understanding of the ground of our decision and will be omitted. There was no sale made of the property, nor was there any binding contract of sale executed. But plaintiffs claim that they procured a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy at an accepted, or an authorized price. It appears that defendant resided in Kansas and that he put the property in plaintiffs’ hands for sale at $3,500. They Avere not authorized to sell at any less price except by special authority. The defendant did afterwards, on learning of a prospect of sale, offer to take $3,100. Mrs. McConnell, who figures in the case as the prospective purchaser, would not give that price. Then defendant
It seems plain that no case Avas made against defendant. The proposed purchaser refused to give $3,100 for the property, but offered to give $2,850 in part cash and part deferred payments. The defendant rejected that and made an offer to take $2,900, which the proposed purchaser refused. The Avhole matter Avas then
It follows that since the purchaser produced by plaintiffs did not offer to buy the property at a price which defendant was under obligation to accept, the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. The judgment is reversed.