Arizona republican., 1905-12-08
SUIT FOR COMMISSION
 IN REAL ESTATE DEAL
An Interesting Question of Relation
 Between Owner and Dealer.

The very interesting case of E. A.
 Spaulding against E. Sunderland was
 tried in district court yesterday. This
 is suit for commission on the sale
 of property Not much money but a
 novel question is involved in the ac-
 tion. There is no dispute as to the facts in the case.
 The defendant was the owner of several houses on lots on East McKin-
 ley street and vicinity. The plaintiff
 was engaged in the real estate busi- ness. He was visited by a man by
 the name of Strouse, a newcomer in
 the city, desirous of buying property. He described what he wanted and the
 plaintiff at once remembered that cer-
 tain property belonging to the defend-
 ant filled that description. MT. Spauld- ing telephoned to MT. Sunderland, who
 called at his office and fixed the price of $1,150 on the property. In answer to question by the plaintiff, he said that that was the net price and that he would pay no commission. MT.
 Spaulding then said that he would have to ask s1,200 for the property in order to get his commission out of 1t. The defendant replied that he had no objection to any price the plaintiff might ask and receive, just so long as he should get $1,150 out of it.
 Negotiations with MT. Strouse were then resumed and he was on the point of taking the property at $1.200. But in making investigation in that neighbor hood he found that other property be- longing to the defendant, in every re- spect the same as that under consider ation, had been sold by him for $1,150. Mr. Strouse told MT. Spaulding that he would pay no more. The defendant was informed of the determination of MT. Strouse and he manifested no fur ther interest in the proceedings.
 Some time after that a MT. Strang, living in that neighbornood, telephon- ed MT. Sunderland that he had found purchaser for the Mckinley street property at $1,150, and asked him to come and meet him. MT. Sunderland did not know at the time who the prospective purchaser was, but on meeting him he found that he was MT. Strouse. The deal was closed.
 Thereupon MT. Spaulding brought 1 suit for a commission of five per cent on the amount of the purchase price on the ground that he had brought the seller and the purchaser together. This would be $57.50, which it was pointed 1 out by the defense was $7.50 more than the plaintiff had already suggested he | should receive. There are not great | many authorities bearing on the case, which has been taken under advise I, ment.
 The case of F. c. Fisher against J. 1 N. Ellison for damages was taken up | lafr, In1 bought a lot of alfalfa hay from the | defendant and fed it to his horses with | the result that one of them died and | the others had serious intestinal trou- ble. He claims that the hay was cut | green and was improperly cured and | left altogether in that state which the | plaintiff swore was calculated to in cite blood poisoning and a consequent Arrangement of the entire equine sys- tenn. He had several witnesses, all of whom testified to the bad quality of the hay, and a bunch of it was intro 1uced in evidence and submitted to the court for expert investigation. Judge Kent eyed it critically. smelled of it critically and laid it aside. It is not presumed, though, that what he discovered will greatly aid him in up the judgment.
 In the case of Peter Nelssen against ! -he Salt River Valley Canal company /. the motion and demurrer of the plain tiff were overruled and the case was 4 set for tomorrow. The respondent in this case is Justice Johnstone, from whose court an appeal was taken. The action had been brought to recover charges for water in excess of a rate fixed by the district court for a pre- vious season.