280 F. 1011 | D.D.C. | 1922
Appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court of the District for the plaintiff, appellee here, in an action for the recovery of a broker’s commission on the sale of certain real estate.
“to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover unless he had made out that the defendant understood that she was employing him as her agent to procure for her a purchaser, and that he did procure the University to make the lease containing the option which was afterwards exercised by the University, and' that as far as the amount of his recovery was concerned he could recover only a reasonable compensation by way of commission, unless the jury found that a commission of 3 per cent, was agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant.”
“upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in' writing.”
But, while plaintiff’s contract with the defendant was in parol, the option might have been exercised within a .year, and the statute therefore does not apply. Warner v. Texas & Pac. Rd. Co., 164 U. S. 418, 17 Sup. Ct. 147, 41 L. Ed. 495.
Finding no error in the record we affirm the judgment, with costs.
Affirmed.