Case Name: KOHL v. CRUM
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-07-13
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 736
Docket Number: No. 976
Parties: KOHL v. CRUM
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 736–736

Head Matter:
No. 758
KOHL v. CRUM
Ohio Appeals. 3rd District, Crawford County
No. 976.
Decided July 13, 1923
This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
82. CHARGES TO JURY.
Requests-Record must show they were made in writing.
294. PLEADING.
Sufficiency of averments of petition for real estate commission-Need not aver prospect was ready and willing to buy, when states he did buy.
Attorneys-L. C. Feighner, for Kohl E. Vollrath for Cruni.

Opinion:
HUGHES, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Action by real estate broker to recover commissions for services under a brokerage contractt for the sale of property. The evidence disclosed that the property was listed with Crum to be so'd by him upon a commission of 2% and that the price first asked by Kohl was $4,5)OO. Crum took the party who afterwards purchased the p~ .pe~Ly ior $4,000 to Kohl, introduced him, and showed him thE property. There is some dispute as to who consum mated the sale. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the judginent allowing a roal estate commission held:
1. There is sufficient evidence to warrant a find ing that Crum furnished a purchaser who actuall~ purchased the property upon terms which he late: agreed upon with Kohl.
2. The fact that the petition did not aver that thi prospect was ready, able and willing, is not de fective when it does aver that the prospect actuall: did purchase the property upon terms agreed upon
3. In regard to the special request made befor argument, the record does not show that these re quests were made in writing and hence they did no conform to the statute, and there was no error i~ refusing to give them.