199 P. 709 | Mont. | 1921
prepared the opinion for the court.
For a first cause of action the plaintiff herein claims damages in the sum of $3,000, pursuant to the terms of a contract entered into between plaintiff and decedent on March 14, 1912, whereby the decedent agreed, among other things, to pay to the plaintiff one-half of the difference between the agreed selling price of decedent’s land, or $12,000, and the amount of a mortgage against the land for $6,000 if the plaintiff should effectuate sale of decedent’s land according to the terms of their contract. Plaintiff alleges that in accordance with the terms of said contract he procured a purchaser who was ready, able and willing to buy at the stipulated price per acre, but that the decedent, for the purpose of preventing the sale, knowingly and intentionally absented and secreted himself from his ranch, and by reason thereof the prospective purchaser was unable to consummate the deal.
A second cause of action is based upon a quantum meruit alleging $3,000 as a reasonable value of the services of plain
The answer puts in issue all of the material allegations of the complaint except the contract between plaintiff and decedent. Trial was had to a jury; verdict was in favor of defendant; motion for a new trial was denied; and this appeal is from the order denying the motion.
Appellant assigns nineteen specifications of error. In his
Specifications numbered 5 to 9, inclusive, predicate error
Specification No. 10 assigns error in the refusal of the court to give the following instruction: “Under the terms of the eon-
This proposed instruction meets with our approval and we think is a fair statement of what was required of plaintiff to justify a verdict at the hands of the jury, but we think
No particular language is required of the court in instruet
Per Curiam: For the reasons given in tbe foregoing opinion, it is ordered that tbe order of tbe court appealed from be affirmed.
'Affirmed.