43 Neb. 739 | Neb. | 1895
This was an action by Funk against the Lattas to recover $2,500 alleged to be due on a special contract for procuring a purchaser for property alleged to belong to both defendants, the title to which the evidence discloses was in Sarah Latta alone. The answers are general denials, and there was a verdict and judgment for the defendants.
Complaint is made of one instruction given by the court of its own motion, but no exception was taken to the giving of this instruction and the action of the trial court in that respect cannot, therefore, be reviewed.
The plaintiff requested three instructions, which were refused. The refusal of these instructions is assigned as error in the same manner as in Hiatt v. Kinkaid, 40 Neb., 178. If one instruction of the group was properly refused the assignment of error must fail. The first of these instructions was as follows: “The jury are instructed that if they find from the evidence that this plaintiff was employed or authorized to procure a purchaser for the Latta block by Sarah A. Latta, or some one acting for her, and if you further find that this plaintiff, acting under his employment, did find a purchaser for said property who was able and willing to purchase the property at a price named by the defendant, then, the plaintiff is entitled to .his commission and your verdict will be for the plaintiff.” This instruction was objectionable because of the phrase “some one acting for her.” It was not sufficient to bind Sarah A. Latta that the plaintiff should be employed by some one acting for her. It was necessary that that person should be authorized by her to so act or that she should afterwards
A number of assignments relate to rulings on the evidence. These are referred to in the brief in the most general language, and such comment as there is, is only upon the exclusion of evidence. The questions to which it is claimed the court erred in sustaining objections relate to facts concerning Dr. Latta’s agency for his wife. We will not review them in detail. One was asked in the redirect examination and the objection was made for that reason. It was clearly not proper redirect examination. Other objections were properly sustained because the questions were asked •in cross-examintion and were not pertinent to the subject-matter of the examination in chief. Several questions were objectionable as calling for conclusions. For instance, the following was put to the witness, Frank Brownell: “Did Dr. Latta act as the agent of his wife in the transaction with you respecting the sale of the Latta block?” No error in the record has been pointed out and the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.