123 Wis. 355 | Wis. | 1904
Plaintiff, as a real-estate agent, sued defendant for commissions which he claims are due him upon
It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to submit to them the inquiry whether the original agreement was superseded by a subsequent one between plaintiff, defendant, and Armfield & Parker. The foregoing statement contains the substance of the evidence bearing upon this question. We find no facts which support the contention. The only transactions on which the claim is predicated are the occurrences-while defendant, plaintiff, and Parker were driving to the Horton farm, when the first interview was had with a member of the firm of Armfield & Parker. It appears that plaintiff and defendant met Parker at Fennimore, by mutual arrangement made in the forenoon of the day, to drive to Horton's farm to negotiate with him for an exchange of the hotel property. The defendant denies that he made any agreement
This conclusion disposes of all the exceptions urged upon this appeal. Since the jury found an agreement was made between plaintiff and defendant, as alleged in the complaint,
By the Oourb. — Judgment affirmed.