Case ID: ohio-law-abs_47/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KITCHEN & SHEETS, INC., Appellee, v. SEEGMILLER, Appellant.
    Ohio Appeals, First District, Butler County.
    No. 917
    Decided June 26, 1946
    
      C. W. 'EÍliott, Middletown, for Appellee.
    Clinton D. Boyd, Middletown, and Maxwell Finkleman, Middletown, for Appellant.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The defendant appeals on questions of law from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in favor of the plaintiff. This judgment was entered upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff.

The plaintiff claimed in his pleadings that the defendant had agreed to pay him a commission for the sale of certain real estate; that he had procured a purchaser therefor; and that the defendant sold the real estate to such purchaser directly and refused to pay plaintiff his commission.

The defendant denies’ these allegations. The general and special charges of the Court fairly stated the issues presented by the pleadings. .The evidence sustained the conclusion of the jury.'

The defendant lays great stress -upon the fact developed in the statement of counsel and the evidence that the property, which the defendant sought to have sold, belonged to the defendant’s wife. There is no rule of law preventing one from agreeing to pay a commission for the sale of another’s property. This is. not an action between a purchaser and seller.

The Court required the plaintiff to amend his petition. In doing so, the Court committed error as far as the plaintiff was concerned, but the pleading of plaintiff still contained the necessary allegations furnishing .a predicate for the verdict of the jury.

No error appears in the record prejudicial to the defendant appellant, and the judgment is affirmed.

HILDEBRANT, PJ, MATTHEWS and ROSS, JJ, concur in opinion and judgment.