Melton

In this action to recover a commission for procuring a purchaser of realty bonds appellant seeks a reversal of an adverse judgment, based upon a verdict, on the ground that an instruction, erroneously construing an alleged contract between such purchaser and respondents, directed a verdict against him on the issue of performance. As the appeal presents no issue as to the employment, it is sufficient to say that the uncontroverted testimony shows that at a meeting of appellant and respondents Story and Powers, the former was employed for a commission to procure a purchaser of a proposed bond issue and that the conflicting testimony of the parties left for the jury’s decision whether respondent Riley was then present and whether the bonds were also to be secured by personal guarantees as well as by realty.

To prove his production of a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy, appellant offered and the court admitted a so-called paper signed by a bond house (the proposed purchaser) and respondents. As to its legal effect, the court instructed the jury (1) “that the paper . . . not having been signed by all the parties thereto, was not an executed instrument or binding upon any of…