Hutchon

In an action for a share of brokers’ commission alleged to have been earned in negotiating a sale of certain real property, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

The principal question presented by the appellant’s briefs must be determined upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence to support judgment. It appeared that the respondent demanded payment for his services from one H. S. Sewell, who had been employed by the appellant to effect a sale of real estate. One J. E. Saint, who was then assisting Sewell in obtaining a sale of the same property, introduced the latter to the respondent, who worked with Sewell and the purchaser until the transaction was placed in escrow which resulted in its consummation. Sewell agreed in writing to a division of such commission as might be due to himself and Saint with the respondent, which agreement was delivered to Hutchon, approved by Saint and so reported back to Sewell. Thereafter the respondent wrote the appellant, setting’ forth foregoing agreement, attached a copy thereof to his letter, and the same was approved in writing by the appellant. Following a failure of payment of his…