Thе plaintiff commenced this action in a justice’s court to recover the sum of $ioo, claimed to be due him as commission for negotiating a sale of real estate describеd in the complaint. The action was tried in the justice’s court, and appealed to the circuit court, where it was again tried, and verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and the dеfendant appeals.
The complaint in substance alleges that a contract was entered into on June 13, 1899, between the plaintiff and the defendant to the effect that, -if the plaintiff should find a purchaser for the said lands on the terms therein stated, he was to .receive $100; that
It is contended on the part of the appellаnt that the court erred in overruling the motion made by the defendant at the close offihe plaintiff’s testimony, and renewed at the close of all the evidence, to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. The respondent insists that the court ruled correctly in denying the motion, for the reason that the appellant did not specify in the motion the alleged errоrs on which he now relies for a reversal, nor specify the. particular grounds for the motion. We are of the opinion that the respondent is right in this contention. At the close of the рlaintiff’s testimony the defendant moved the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, “for the reason that the evidence is insufficient to show or constitutе a cause of action.” The motion in the same form was renewed at the close of all the evidence. This court has repeatedly held that such a motion is insufficient, in that it fails to point out specifically the grounds upon which the party making the motion relies. In Tanderup v. Hansen, 8 S. D. 375,
It is further contended on the part of the appellant that the evidence is insufficient to justify or sustain either the charge of the court, the verdict, or the judgment, for the reasons specified in the specifications of error contained in the bill of exceptions; and that neither the verdict nor the judgment are sustained or justified by the charge of the court, and the verdict and judgment are each against the lаw. In the specifications of errors in the bill of exceptions which was used on the motion for a new trial the áppellant specifies, among others, the insufficiency of the evidenсe to justify or sustain the verdict in that: “There is no evidence to show that the plaintiff at any time found or procured a purchaser of the land in question, who at any time was ready, willing, and ablе to purchase such land for the price and on the terms and conditions stipulated in the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant; nor does the evidence show that the plaintiff at any time accepted any offer made by any one for the purchase of said land, nor that any bargain for the sale of said land was closed by the plaintiff, either before or after the defendant changed the price and terms. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiff had found or procured a purchaser for said land who wаs ready, willing, and able to purchase said land for the said alleged price and on said alleged terms and' conditions at any time before or after the defendant notified the
After a careful examination of the recоrd in this case, we are unable to discover any evidence proving or tending to prove that Halstead ever offered at any time to the plaintiff or the defendant to take thе property upon the terms specified by the defendant, for the reason that he never agreed to accept one-third of the crop with the real property, and рay the stipulated amount therefor, and there was no evidence of his ability to purchase the property. The verdict of the jury, therefore, is not supported by the evidence, and the judgment and order denying a new trial are reversed, and a new trial ordered.