199 Wis. 473 | Wis. | 1929
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff made a bona fide con
It is difficult to see how a broker could do anything and do less than was done by the plaintiff in this case, and if the evidence here sustains the finding of bona fides on the part of the broker, such a finding would have to be sustained in practically every case. No one can lay down categorically the things that are nece'ssary to be done in every case in order to establish a bona fide effort to procure a sale. Outside of the general statements made by the plaintiff, which are mere conclusions, we find nothing in this case to sustain the proposition that he made a bona fide effort to procure a sale of the premises in question. They were not advertised, he brought no purchasers, there was no proof that he had exhibited the premises. He did nothing apparently but list the property and make one personal inspection. He knew of the impending sale to Schultz, to whom he had attempted to sell other property. He waited until the sale was closed through another broker and then made demand upon the defendant for the commission. It is considered that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, with directions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
