, 1891-11-07
REALTY CONTRACTS.
A CONTENTION AS TO THE AMOUNT
OF CONFESSIONS
Judgment I'm the Lower Court no
versed-A Case of Interest
to Real Estate FEem.

Judgment I'm the Lower Court R9
versed-A Case of Interest
to Real Estate EEem.
The DAILY and WEEKLY TRIBUNE wi
print from time to time all the decisions g
the supreme court.
William r. Wallace, plaintiff and respond
ent vs.. Anna M. Johnson, defendan
and appellant.
That part Of plaintiffs complaint whicl
is material, SO far as the questions in
yolved in this appeal are concerned, is a
follows:
4. That this plaintiff sustained friendl,
relations with the officers and members O
said land company, and that the defend
ant, well knowing the relations that ex
listed between the officers and mem,
bers Of said land company anc
plaintiff, and being desirons o:
purchasing a number of the town lots
which said land company was then pre-
pairing to offer for sale; and being also de
slrous OF collecting from said land com
pany said sum of three hundred dollars
(S300) entered into contract with this plain
tiff IN which she employed plaintiff to buy
and sell property for her in South Bend
Washington, and to collect said sum 81
three hundred dollars ($30O) and to pur.
chase from said land company such town
lots as he should select, and authorized
plaintiff to apply said sum of three hun
dred dollars ($3C9l claimed to be due her
a. 3ss paIC 05 inc purchase price OF any lots
~ sliouI9 li PllrGnase Ior hef and also pro
afael @IIet ilIs5leu piainGlI Wltn the sum
ply upon any purchase which he might
make under his said employment, and in
consideration of the services to be rendered
by plaintiff in making such purchases and
collecting said demand, said defendant
pm ploiilloell ttIu aSleeo 10 pay TO plalntlH as
VlIeIelof sum equal to 70
P9i oefiU - y Iy sslIy anu al ADVANCE IN the
pltue = 9SsIe hots oyer ana ABOVE the pur-
-1'e y Tbat R1af9 pllGago,+ oilGaGol, II aa;a 7a
o,,d i,,s lstg Pt5leuanI 70 sald employment
tsllIL Y collStdeFaGlon ~ OF Che promise and
tSI IeeLiIShC o1 Sala deIendanG as aforesaid,
if4iiIo-1I ellCeIel upon Ghe dlscnarge OF his
duues hereunder, and on or about the 23d
10y u e Seanuary i89O, ne selected and pur-
salu 9ouGn beha Lana Com
~ fto ~ r'lt y SIe name q Gne defend
toea9 lCg91 r l9 l9VS e. alo lGf Ie sum Of
1eeeoNI ~ nullafed Qollars
&RGogol, Riog uPo the io5loWlhg tefmS One
Inl5a LII caSn' one-thlrd due IN SIX months
afa [iil oi1F-grfq aF aue N 6WeIye months from
" ~ %ilCge eQllCraSG thereafter to be
faaae' fsae ana PAD therefor as part of the
- tltL7 %. = Pay yit, nLeLG, Sadd sum OF nineteen
I Irs 1oliars lPl9JOl furnlshed to him
NNNSSA
tI1ll 2ouTll p?Ilu Ltlld company TO allow and
apPdy S@53d saIu sum oI thfee hundred dollars
4PoogJ 4l GIallllee py deIendant as aforesaid as
Ihe palahce OF the Ilrst partial payment Of
sa!u purchase price, and afterwards re-
GeIyeo 57e WflIGeh contracts In the name of the
ueteI1uaI1S VIII M u I1le[e7oE
~ =. iistU subsequent 10 SAID selection
Of AZ s'lia PIto[ 70 the e1ecutlon
OF bhe written contracts therefor by mutual
dSIS6LH6IlG between plalllGlH and defend
aIS3 Z s1lQrI Inlenlofandu1n recltlng bis en-
Fly Illellg ~ @ @S!l1! showing Inc compensation
WnIcn plalIlH should receive for the
~ 95 IyIoe9 !4 lelaeEea as AFORESAID was reduced
~ y 1io5 iMLlIIi5Ig, signed py sald defendant and
pellXeiea 70 PialntlH. a copy OF which is
HeTeIo a!Iacnea " Ley, ana marked a.
~ LlAL!-plG 5 a bheFeln referred to was in
u Ene WORDS ana ngures following, towit;
4
~ Wllola ~ may concern:
hnoW GhaG i nave appointed w. E. Wal
ds.oe dsi illy agent, 70 puy ana sell property i'll
Z 29lUn ~! Il Demo, WASH, ana L agree to pay
LII ~ pgI 3 cellG on all the advance IN the
PtlCe !Ce VI al SuGh properly as buy through
llI1l 4l.t0S oY9F II L1e orlglnal price
DaVeo fepruafy L, 1oSO.
ANNA M. JOHNSTON.
IN, W lGneSs .. ~. pkldmore.
NJ appellant contends that the con-
tt tIacG IlllIs set ollG ana sued upon was con
y S ~ ~ ~ NlIlo!i ~! P1alnClu was 10 purchase
ssu selt certain real estate III the town Of
ao4th % Bend ana that his compensation for
80 ,ouyIllg ,1t eng Selllng was to be twenty-five
per a,,e cent. OF the profits.
Inc respondent Pc claims that fair con
81 ! Gne contract, as stated in his
70 colllPlaiint, Is, that ne was simply employed
70 ! r purchase l the property in question, and
Inat doE 80 dong be was to have the com
PensaGlol ~ a.! provided for therein,
aiIo5 n ne contention 9 on the part Of the ap
PeilanI ,slst y Irqe, u must follow that the
IluagilneedhC llg en- OF the court below was wrong,
iGf Iov While the plaintiff would not be reme
uiIess nbera IL o suGn was me contract IN case
to naeI1 ~ ne properly Paeaded claim upon
Cll9 " Y Jun hlefulG 1of WhaG he had done,
q, or iqr damages for breach Of the contract
Guns y I9e parC q the defendant, he clearly
coula 4 not recover. II this action which is
qne strlctly upon the contract # his con
tlaco tlt. wts 70 Puy ana sell for twenty five
Per cellC ne clearly could not recover TWEEN.
ty.hYe per cent for simply buying. We
5 think fair interpretation Of the language
usea USE warrants i the contention of the ap-