Case Name: BOEDKER v. WARREN E RICHARDS COMPANY
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1931-11-23
Citations: 11 Ohio Law Abs. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOEDKER v WARREN E RICHARDS COMPANY
Judges: ROSS, PJ and CUSHING, J, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 11
Pages: 558–558

Head Matter:
BOEDKER v WARREN E RICHARDS COMPANY
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
Decided November 23, 1931
Mr. Mitchell Wilby, Cincinnati, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Kunkel & Kunkel, Cincinnati, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
HAMILTON, J.
The contract for the real estate commission in question was signed by Boedker prior to the coming to terms of agreement of sale between Boedker, the seller, and Burckhart, the purchaser. In other words, no offer and acceptance had been made in the instant case and at the time of signing the contract to pay the commission, as was the fact in the Brua case, supra.
Further,, there is some evidence tending to show that the agent took Boedker to see the purchaser after the signing of the commission contract, upon which occasion the sale agreement was effected. The case of Warner v Brua, supra, is therefore not controlling.
Plaintiff in error further complains that if the plaintiff below was .entitled to any commission, it was limited to 4 per cent, on $15,000, or $600, as at the time of filing this suit $5,000 was unpaid. At the time of trial, the $5,000 balance had been paid. While the plaintiff to be technical might have filed a supplemental petition in order to avoid any question concerning the sale price, it was admitted at the trial that the $5,000. balance had been paid, so that no prejudice resulted from the failure to file a supplemental petition, if one was needed.
Other claimed errors are not important or prejudicial, and do not require a reversal of the judgment.
Finding no error in the record prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, the judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.
ROSS, PJ and CUSHING, J, concur.