Case Name: PATRICK SHINNERS v. ANDREW PETERSON
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1922-01-13
Citations: 151 Minn. 156
Docket Number: No. 22,594
Parties: PATRICK SHINNERS v. ANDREW PETERSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
PATRICK SHINNERS v. ANDREW PETERSON.
January 13, 1922.
No. 22,594.
Broker’s commission — finding supported by evidence.
The evidence sustains a finding of the trial court that the plaintiff, a broker, procured a purchaser for the property of the defendant, and earned an agreed commission.
Action in the municipal court of St. Paul to recover $150. The case was tried before Finehout, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying his motion for amended findings and conclusions or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
William J. Horrigan, for appellant.
Olaire I. WeiJcert, for respondent.
Reported in 186 N. W. 339.

Opinion:
Dibell, J.
Action to recover a broker's commission for procuring a purchaser for the restaurant of the defendant. There were findings for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
The defendant agreed to give the plaintiff a commission of 5 per cent if he secured a purchaser. The terms of the sale were not agreed upon at the time. The time limit was Saturday, October 30, 1920. On that date the defendant offered to sell for $3,000. The plaintiff procured a prospective purchaser, who had been negotiating for some time, and who on that day agreed to pay $2,750. He did not agree to pay $3,000. On the following Monday, November 1, he offered to take the property at $3,000. The plaintiff claims that on Saturday the defendant extended the time. This is denied. The evidence is vague. Taken in connection with the plaintiff's testimony as to occurrences afterward, looking toward the closing of the deal, the evidence is such as to sustain the trial court's finding that the offer was still open, with authority in the plaintiff to procure a purchaser at $8,000 and earn his commission, and that on Monday he procured one willing and able to close the purchase on the offered terms. The evidence would have sustained a finding that there was no extension of time. Order affirmed.