21 Wis. 302 | Wis. | 1867
Rehearing
The respondent moved for a rehearing.
The respondent, having moved for a rehearing, contends that the court erred in holding that Harlow had a right to act on the letter of Darrow to him, inasmuch as Har
Barrow was not, by the agreement, to have the sole right to sell the farm, or find a purchaser for it. There is nothing in the agreement to preclude the defendant, who wished to sell bis farm, from finding himself a purchaser if be could. Such verbal contracts must receive a reasonable construction. And in this case we think there must be. implied an undertaking that the plaintiff was to "have the hundred dollars, if he, within a reasonable time, before the defendant himself sold his farm, found a customer who luould purchase it, and notified the defendant thereof. Taking this view of the contract, if the motion for a nonsuit bad been renewed after the evidence was closed, it would have been error not to have granted it. Lomer v. Meeker, 25 N. Y., 361, and authorities there cited.
By the Court — Motion denied.
Lead Opinion
Was the motion for a nonsuit rightly overruled ? If the letter of Darrow to Harlow conveyed the idea that O’Connor would, for a part of the personal property on the farm, and the farm, give only $35 per acre, then the nonsuit ought to have been granted; for Harlow had a right to act upon the letter, and if the terms of the proposed purchase therein set out were different from what he had authorized, then he could sell to another his farm without incurring any liability to Darrow. We are of opinion that the words in the letter, “He will buy some things, and want some things put in the trade,” did, taken in connection with what in the letter precedes them, convey the idea that some property other than the farm was to be included in the sale thereof at $35 per acre; and therefore we think a nonsuit should have been granted.
By the Court. — The judgment is reversed, and a venire denovo awarded.
