Pinney v. Wilson
Pinney v. Wilson
Opinion of the Court
This was an action to recover the sum of $40,000 as a reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s services rendered in procuring a purchaser for t'he defendant’s mining claims, situated in Trinity County, known as the ChlorideBaily, Jenny Lind, and Maple group of mines. The action is based on a written promise, contained in a letter written by defendant to plaintiff, “to pay you a reasonable compensation for such service.” In another part of the letter he says: “To pay you such compensation as in equity and good conscience you are entitled and the margin of profit therein will permit.” The case was tried with a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500, and judgment was given for that amount. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was granted, and defendants appeal from the order granting a new trial.
At the trial it was shown that plaintiff introduced to Wilson (defendant and appellant) one Charles Sweeny, who purchased of Wilson the said mines for $235,000. Every witness produced for the plaintiff testified that ten per cent on the amount for which mining property should sell was a reasonable compensation for the services in finding a purchaser. There was no testimony on the part of defendant, except that given by defendant himself. He testified that when he gave plaintiff the letter referred to, in which he promised a reasonable commission, he offered to give the sum of $7,500; that he considered it reasonable. Then, when the sale was made, he testified that plaintiff came to him and offered to take $10,000 for the services rendered. Defendant said this offer to take
The order granting the new trial is affirmed.
We concur: Chipman, P. J.; McLaughlin, J.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PINNEY v. WILSON
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Broker.—In an Action for Compensation for the Sale of Mining Claims for $235,000, where plaintiff’s witnesses testified that ten per ce'nt was a reasonable compensation, and defendant testified that he offered $7,500, and that plaintiff offered in writing to take $10,000, but no such writing was introduced in evidence, and there was a verdict for plaintiff for $7,500, an award of a new trial to plaintiff was not an abuse of discretion.1