Case Name: MORRISON v. FRANCK
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1910-10-04
Citations: 59 Or. 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORRISON v. FRANCK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 429–438

Head Matter:
On Motion to Affirm Judgment, decided October 4, 1910.
On the Merits, argued July 20,
decided August 1;
rehearing denied September 12, 1911.
MORRISON v. FRANCK.
[110 Pac. 1090: 117 Pac. 308.]
Appeal and Error — Affirmance on Motion.
1. Under Section 553, B. & C. Comp., providing that, on appeal, appellant shall within 30 days file a transcript or such abstract as the rules of the appellate court may require, etc., and Supreme Court rule 20, as amended October 5, 1909, providing that all motions must be filed within 10 days after á party or his counsel know of an alleged failure of the adverse party to comply with the requirements of the statute or the rules, etc., a motion to affirm a judgment of nonsuit, made after the 10 days, will be denied, where no certificate of the judge is appended to the abstract showing that the same contains all the testimony.
Appeal and Error — Sufficiency of Abstract — Bringing Up Bill of Exceptions.
2. Section 554, L. O. L., provides that the appellant shall, within 30 days, file with the clerk of the appellate court a transcript or such an abstract as the rules of the appellate court may require, or so much of the record as may be necessary to intelligibly present the questions to be decided by the appellate tribunal. Supreme Court rule 9 (50 Or. 574: 91 Pac. ix), specifying what shall be contained in the abstract, requires appellant to set out so -much of the bill of exceptions, or substance thereof, as is necessary to show the rulings of the court, and no more, and rule 5 (50 Or. 572: 91 Pac. viii) provides that if respondent deem the abstract imperfect or unfair he may deliver a further abstract, thereby disposing with the necessity of bringing up the bill of exceptions. Held, that it was not necessary that the certified copy of the bill of exceptions, as settled and signed by the judge, should be filed in the Supreme Court, but an abstract which stated that “the following proceedings were had, as shown by the bill of exceptions,” and purporting to contain the bill in full, containing a motion for a directed verdict, with the statement that “the foregoing was all the testimony offered by either party,” and containing a statement of the exceptions arising on the admission of testimony and the instructions, with such statement of the evidence as was necessary to explain the exceptions, was sufficient.
Appeal and Error — Scope op Review — Matters Not Necessary for Decision.
3. Where there was no question involved on the motion for nonsuit, which was not raised by the motion for a directed verdict, the court on appeal will consider only the latter.
Brokers — Commissions—Agreements Between Competing Brokers —Consideration.
4. Where several brokers were concerned in the sale of land and the terms of the sale were agreed on, but the parties refused to complete the sale until there was an agreement by the brokers for division of the commission, an agreement by one of them to accept a certain sum, amounting practically to a surrender of his right to make the sale for himself to that purchaser, or any other, and to further the sale by another broker, was supported by sufficient consideration, and he was entitled to recover thereon from the broker making the sale.
Brokers — Commissions—Actions—Evidence.
5. In an action by one broker against another for a portion of commissions for a sale on an alleged agreement therefor, in consideration of the plaintiff’s release of his own right to sell the premises to a purchaser and furtherance of the sale made by the defendant, evidence of what the plaintiff had done toward the sale, and evidence of statements made by the owner that plaintiff had authority to sell, was admissible, not as evidence of consideration or the agreement sued on, but as tending to show that he was negotiating with the same purchaser for a sale, and might have a claim to a commission, if the sale was made.
From Multnomah: John B. Cleland, Judge.
This is an action by Finley Morrison and William J. Morrison, partners doing business under the firm name of Finley Morrison & Son, against L. S. Franck, to recover a commission alleged to be earned from a sale of real estate. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals, and this hearing is upon respondent’s motion to affirm the judgment of the lower court.
Messrs. Coovert & Stapleton and Mr. J. F. Boothe for the motion.
Messrs. Platt & Platt, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Moore.
This is a motion to affirm a judgment. An abstract, in lieu of a transcript, was filed with our clerk March 29, 1910, within the time prescribed. The respondents' counsel, on June 24, 1910, interposed this motion, based on the ground that no proper bill of exceptions had been sent up and that no question respecting the pleadings or the jurisdiction had been raised.
Rule 20 of the Supreme Court, as amended October 5, 1909, so far as applicable herein, is as follows:
"All motions must be filed within 10 days after a party or his counsel obtain knowledge of an alleged failure of the adverse party or his counsel to comply with the requirements of the statute or with the rules of this court. Any neglect to file a motion within such time will be deemed a waiver of all defects, except matters of jurisdiction."
The statute regulating the transfer of causes contains the following clause:
"Upon the appeal being perfected, the appellant shall, within thirty days thereafter, file with the clerk of the appellate court a transcript or such an abstract as the rules of the appellate court may require, of so much of the record as may be necessary to intelligibly present the questions to be decided by the appellate tribunal, together with a copy of the judgment or decree appealed from, the notice of appeal and proof of service thereof, and of the undertaking on appeal; and thereafter the appellate court shall have jurisdiction of the cause, but not otherwise." Section 553, B. «fe C. Comp.
One of the errors alleged is the refusal of the court to grant a nonsuit. The determination of that question requires a consideration of all the testimony introduced prior to the request for the special judgment. The sworn declarations of the witnesses occupy 144 pages of the printed abstract, but whether or not that volume contains all the testimony received is impossible to state, for no certificate of the judge is appended. It is unnecessary to speculate upon the sufficiency of the abstract, for it contains some of the testimony, and, as appellant's counsel was required to set forth so much of the record as might be necessary, the quantum thereof must largely be a matter of choice, and any failure to embrace all the testimony is not a question of jurisdiction. Such being the case, the neglect to file the motion to affirm the judgment within the time limited therefor is fatal.
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Eakin.
This is an action to recover part of the commission earned from a sale of real estate.
The complaint alleges that D. C. Pelton, being the owner of certain timber land, authorized the plaintiffs to sell the same at the price of $200,000, for which they should receive, as compensation, 5 per cent of the sale price, such authority extending until April 7, 1909; that during March, 1909, plaintiffs offered the land to the Crossett Timber Company, through its representative, A. Sprague; that defendant also had authority from Pelton to sell the land on the same terms, and that he was endeavoring to sell it to the same party; that the Crossett Timber Company agreed to purchase it, if plaintiffs and defendants would come to some agreement between themselves and Pelton as to the division of the commission; and "thereupon, in order to effect a sale, plaintiffs and the defendant entered into an agreement, whereby the plaintiffs would discontinue offering the same to any other party and assist the defendant in making a sale of said lands to the Crossett Timber Company, and if a sale should be made, through their joint efforts, or by either the plaintiffs or the defendant, to said Crossett Timber Company, then the plaintiffs were to receive, as their portion of said commission, the sum of $2,500," less $58.75, a portion of the expense of defendant; that "the plaintiffs performed services for the defendant which resulted in the making of a sale of said lands to the Crossett Timber Company, and the defendant received the said commission of $10,000, and has neglected and refused to pay the plaintiffs said sum of $2,441.25, or any part thereof."
The motion is therefore denied. Denied.