Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

126 Miss. 896

Russell v. Johnson

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1921

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1921-10-15

Hon. E. L. Brien, Judge. Action by A. G. Bussell against Fannie W. Johnson, in which the plaintiff died and Elizabeth N. Bussell was substituted as his administratrix. Judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. The first consideration in determining whether a broker is entitled to compensation is the contract of employment. A broker must have been employed to handle the transaction in which he rendered service for which he claims compensation.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1921-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1985

4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

401921193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ethridge, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2A. G-. Russell, husband of the appellant and the original plaintiff who died pending suit, brought suit ag’ainst appellee for fifty thousand dollars, claimed as commission as real estate agent for services in the sale of Panther Burn Plantation. There was a peremptory instruction for the appellee in the court below, and judgment entered thereon, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted. There is in the record considerable correspondence and evidence, but we think it would be useless to undertake to set it out. After a painstaking consideration of all of the evidence, including the correspondence, we think plaintiff failed to establish contractual relations between himself -and the appellee so as to entitle him to the commission claimed. There was a studious effort on the part of the defendant to avoid any understanding or agreement that would place her under- any obligations to the plaintiff. The only proposition made plaintiff by the defendant at all was to consider any *902offer submitted by the plaintiff or bis clients for the purchase of this property. ■ No offer of purchase was made under any such conditions and terms as could be accepted without further negotiations, and no sale was made by the plaintiff, nor were any ■ terms of sale ever given him by the defendant. The evidence completely fails' to establish such contractual relations as would entitle plaintiff to recover, and the peremptory instruction for the defendant was proper.

¶3Affirmed.

/126/miss/896 · .json · Public domain