Case Name: WILLIAM D. P. LOWRY and Another v. CHARLES L. JOHNSON and Another
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1907-10-18
Citations: 102 Minn. 510
Docket Number: Nos. 15,372—(96)
Parties: WILLIAM D. P. LOWRY and Another v. CHARLES L. JOHNSON and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
WILLIAM D. P. LOWRY and Another v. CHARLES L. JOHNSON and Another.
October 18, 1907.
Nos. 15,372—(96).
Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $100 for services-performed as real estate brokers. The ease was tried before Charles L. Smith, J., who found that plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against defendant Charles L. Johnson, and that defendant Anna Augusta Johnson was entitled to judgment against plaintiffs for her costs and disbursements. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant Charles L. Johnson appealed..
Affirmed.
A. B. Darelius, for appellant.
J. Leroy Smith, for respondents.
Reported in 113 N. W. 1134.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The trial court found that respondents performed the services alleged in the complaint at the request of appellant, C. L. Johnson, and ordered judgment for $100 against him, but found that Anna Augusta Johnson, his wife, was not. a party to the agreement and was not bound thereby.
The evidence is conclusive that respondents found a purchaser for appellant's homestead, and that a contract of purchase was entered into between such purchaser and appellant. According to the evidence submitted by respondents, appellant, C. L. Johnson, agreed to pay respondents $100 commission in case a sale was effected at $2,500, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the court's finding in that respect.
Defendant Anna Augusta Johnson having joined in the contract of sale, no question can be raised on this appeal by .appellant as to the validity of the sale of the homestead. Further, the property having been sold by respondents pursuant to an agreement with appellant, C. L. Johnson, he is not in position to raise any question as to the validity of the agreement by reason of the fact that the property constituted the family homestead.
Affirmed.