Majority
Headnote
In an action to recover for services as broker, in selling land of defendant, it appeared that the purchaser saw the lot with the defendant’s name posted upon it, and upon an adjoining lot the name of the plaintiff's assignor, who is a broker. He took down the address of both; and calling first upon the broker, the latter, without any authority, offered to sell him the lot in question. The broker subsequently procured authority from the wife of defendant to sell the lot for $5,000; but, before he had any further negotiation with the purchaser, the latter negotiated a purchase from the defendant himself at $4,500.The amended return presents a state of facts which would warrant tbe justice in concluding that Kelso bad nothing to do with effecting tbe sale of tbe lot to Kerr. Kerr saw tbe lot in question with Gori’s name and address on it, which be took down, intending to see Gori about it. He at tbe same time saw other lots, one of wbicb adjoined tbe lot in question, which had Kelso’s address on them, wbicb be took down, intending to see him also. He called on Kelso first, and Kelso, who then had no authority, offered to sell tbe lot in question for $5,000; hut Kerr made him no offer, intending to see Gori. Some
Judgment affirmed.