Hageman

The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $1,250, alleged to be due as a commission for effecting an exchange of real estate: The trial court held that the transaction was so tainted with fraud on the part of the plaintiff as to preclude a recovery, and gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

The appellant rested his right to recover upon certain writings signed and approved by the respondent. The respondent asserted that the agreements produced by appellant did not show the true contract, but had been fraudulently altered in material respects by the appellant after execution. During the course of the trial the court admitted, over the objection of appellant, evidence of verbal negotiations between the parties, for the purpose' of ascertaining just what the parties had agreed to, and what was the real nature of the transaction between them. The evidence was properly admitted. In case of fraud no mere form of words of which the parties have made use can shut out inquiry as to the real facts. (Brison v. Brison, 75 Cal. 525, 533 , [ 7 Am. St. Rep. 189 , 17 Pac. 689 ].) While the testimony is conflicting in material matters, certain facts appear which,…