Hiltz v. Williams
167 Mass. 454
| Mass. | 1897

By the Court. There was evidence that the defendant employed the plaintiff to sell the land, and that the plaintiff, in pursuance of this employment, called Foster’s attention to the land, and had some talk with him about purchasing it. It was competent for the court trying the case without a jury to infer from the evidence that Foster ultimately purchased the land in consequence of the efforts of the plaintiff to sell it.

Exceptions overruled.