Adams v. Pletsch

SHAW, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants, who were promoters of a corporation designated as the Continental Mausoleum Company and who, as agents for the sale of the capital stock of the corporation, were to receive a commission of twenty per cent upon sales made by them. In furtherance of the business for which it was created, the corporation had made a contract whereby it agreed to purchase from William N. Holway the rights' to a certain United States patent for the sum of sixty-five thousand dollars. It appears that defendant Pletsch had a contract with Holway for the collection of this money. The defendants, thus representing both Holway and the corporation, agreed to pay plaintiff ten per cent commission on all stock which he might buy, and a like sum on all sales of stock in the negotiation of which he assisted, and further agreed that he should be paid ten per cent commission on all sums of money collected by Pletsch on the Holway contract. One count of the complaint alleged that, pursuant to this agreement, plaintiff bought stock of the corporation of the value of three thousand five hundred dollars, upon which he was entitled to a commission of seven hundred dollars, and that collections of seven thousand dollars were made upon the Holway contract, upon which he was entitled to a like sum of seven hundred dollars, for the total of which judgment was asked.

The court, in effect, found that as to the stock bought by plaintiff, thirty thousand shares thereof, valued at three thousand dollars, was not subject to the agreement because the same was made after the purchase; that as to the other five hundred dollars worth of stock purchased by plaintiff, he received payment of his commission thereon, which fact

[643]

plaintiff in Ms testimony admitted to be true. It was further, in effect, found that no collections upon which plaintiff was entitled to commissions had been made on the Holway contract.

[1]

The chief ground upon which appellant insists on a reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support these findings. It would be an idle waste of time for the court to make an extended review of the testimony offered touching the issues so joined. Suffice it to say that counsel for appellant concede the testimony of defendants supports the findings.