Hatfield v. Holquist

FRANK R. HATFIELD v. FRANZ E. HOLQUIST

Hatfield v. Holquist, 166 N.W. 1068 (Minn. 1918)

Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 28, 1918
Docket: No. 20,799
Judges: Fee
Citations: 166 N.W. 1068139 Minn. 5131918 Minn. LEXIS 530
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 0

Headnotes

Broker. Action by real estate broker to recover a commission for selling defendant’s farm. Plaintiff wrote defendant he would charge 5 per cent. Defendant replied by letter he thought the commission a little too high, as plaintiff would receive a commission from the other party. Plaintiff wrote in reply that he received no commission from the other party and insisted on the 5 per cent. Defendant denied that he received plaintiff’s second letter. Held: The trial court was justified in finding that defendant received the second letter and the evidence therefore shows an express contract Axing the commission at 5 per cent. [Reporter.]

Summary

Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $375, the agreed price for services rendered defendant in the sale and exchange of property. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, alleged that the services rendered were of no greater value than $100, and tendered judgment for that amount. The case was tried before Bardwell, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, and at the close of the testimony denied defendant’s motion for judgment for $100 in favor of plaintiff, made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. Prom an order denying his motion for amended findings and conclusions or for a new trial, defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fee

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Fee, .Curiam.

The only question in this case is whether the evidence justified the trial court in finding an express contract fixing the compensation of plaintiff, a real estate broker, for services rendered in effecting a sale Or exchange of defendant’s farm. At the initiation of the relations between the parties plaintiff by letter informed defendant that he would charge for his services a commission of 5 per cent. Defendant by letter stated that he thought the commission a little too high, as he supposed plaintiff would receive a commission also from the other party. Plaintiff in reply to this stated that he received no commission from the other party, and insisted on the 5 per cent. Defendant denied receiving that letter, but it appears regular on its face, was in reply to the one written by defendant, and we are of opinion that the trial court was justified in finding that he was mistaken, and that he in fact received the letter. The transaction was closed some time after the letter was received. The evidence therefore shows an express contract fixing the commission at 5 per cent.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list