Case ID: wash_144/html/0698-02.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

[No. 20542.
    Department One.
    June 27, 1927.]
    Thrond P. Bugge, Respondent, v. J. A. Pring, Appellant. 
    
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Griffiths, J., entered August 12, 1926, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract, tried to the court.
    Affirmed.
    
      Vince R. Faben, for appellant.
    
      Daniel Landon, William R. Pemberton, and Roy D. Robinson, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 257 Pac. 629.
    
   Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover a broker’s commission and grows out of the same transaction as does the case Fallers v. Pring, ante, p. 224, 257 Pac. 627, just decided. The trial court sustained the claimed right to recover the commission, and the defendant appeals.

The court having reached the conclusion in the other case that the contract should he specifically enforced, this controls the right of the respondent in the present case to a brokerage commission, about the amount of which there is no controversy.

The judgment will be affirmed.