Case ID: ill-app_183/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Higbee", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warren Watson, Appellee, v. Alice E. Vollentine, Appellant.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Louis Bernreuter, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 9, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Warren Watson against Alice E. Vollentine to recover money claimed to be due to plaintiff for selling real estate owned by defendant under a written instrument giving plaintiff authority to make the sale. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for six hundred and ninety dollars, defendant appeals.
    Appellant claims that the contract relied on was unilateral and void for want of mutuality; that the court erred in excluding certain evidence offered by appellant and in the rulings in regard to the instructions; and that the proofs did not entitle appellee to recover.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Contracts, § 13*—when not void for want of mutuality. A written instrument giving a person authority to sell real estate and to pay compensation for finding a purchaser, held not unilateral and void where one party has procured a purchaser and the other has received the purchase money.
    2. Brokers, § 84*—when evidence of amount expended hy principal incompetent. In an action to recover compensation for procuring a purchaser of real estate for defendant, evidence offered by defendant as to amount she had expended to perfect the title and to pay interest on mortgage held incompetent where the written agreement between the parties provided that defendant should bear this expense.
    3. Brokers, § 95*—when instruction on effect of revocation of contract, properly modified. In an action on a contract to recover compensation for selling real estate for defendant, defendant’s instruction telling the jury that defendant had a right to revoke the contract and thereby deprive plaintiff of compensation, held properly modified so as to require such revocation to have taken place prior to the execution of the sale.
    C. H. Burton, for appellant.
    P. H. Hiles and J. L. Simpson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.