153 Iowa 488 | Iowa | 1911
Plaintiff’s petition is in three counts. The first is based upon an agreement to pay plaintiff a commission, the amount not being fixed, recovery being asked for the reasonable value of the service; the second upon an agreement to pay plaintiff the sum of $172, or $1 per acre, as commission for selling the land; and the third is k combination of the two claims elaborated to a considerable extent by allegations as to the facts under which the land is claimed to have been listed and the purchaser found. The trial court submitted the third .count only, and of this complaint is made. The verdict was for the defendant.
I. For a reversal, plaintiff relies upon many propositions arising out of rulings on the admission and rejection of testimony, the giving and refusal to give certain instructions, and the overruling of his motion for a new trial.
III. No exceptions were taken to the instructions at the time of trial, and the only exceptions embodied in the motion for a new trial which we may consider have relation to instructions one and four, which are claimed to be in conflict, and to eleven and one-half as follows: “The court erred in giving said instruction number eleven and one-half for the reason that the same is in direct conflict with the other instructions in the case, in this: that the court told the, jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover herein if they had shown that the lands were listed with them, and that the plaintiffs had procured a purchaser ready, able,
Instruction one stated the issues as we think correctly, and instruction four is not in conflict, but in exact harmony therewith.
The verdict has such support in the testimony that we can not interfere. The judgment must be, and it is, affirmed.