Wieghardt v. Wagner

Beiscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action brought by Henry W. Wagner, a licensed real estate broker, against Marie Wieghardt, in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City, to recover the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars, alleged to he due him by Mrs. Wieghardt as commissions for services rendered ¹⁸⁹ her in procuring the sale of certain property, known as 423 ¡S. Broadway, near Eastern Avenue, situate in Baltimore City. The property was owned by Mrs. Wieghardt, and the account filed with the declaration shows that it sold for the sum of thirteen thousand dollars, and the plaintiff charged two and one-half per cent as commissions, for procuring the sale. There was one exception taken at the trial, and that was to the refusal of the court to grant the defendant’s fourth, sixth and seventh prayers, and the correctness of the ruling of the court on these prayers is the sole question before us, for consideration upon this appeal.

The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars, and from a judgment on this verdict, the defendant has appealed. The defendant’s fourth prayer was a demurrer to the evidence and asked the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence in the case legally sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and their verdict must be for the defendant. The court below properly refused to grant this prayer, because we think there was evidence legally sufficient to take the ease to the jury. The plaintiff testified that, on the 12th of January, 1920, lie met George Wieghardt, a son of the defendant, in the Royal Lunch Room, in the Maryland Casualty Building, Baltimore, and he requested his opinion as to the value of his mother’s property at Fo. 423 S. Broadway, Baltimore.

After receiving a valuation, he asked if the plaintiff would handle rhe property for him, as he had exclusive authority to sell the property, and was willing to pay the usual commissions. The plaintiff, thereupon, agreed to sell the property, as requested. He also further testified that on the next day he saw one Morris Klein and offered the property to him, and reported due offer to Wieghardt, the son of the appellant. It further appears that Mrs. Wieghardt knew that her son was dealing with the plaintiff in reference to the sale of the property, ¹⁹⁰ ■that Wagner had offered the property to Klein, and that he was anxious to buy it.

Klein ultimately bought the property, and whether Wagner -was the procuring cause of the sale was a fact to be-submitted to the jury, under proper instructions from the court. North Ave. Cosino v. Ferguson. 130 Md. 380 ; Carrington v. Graves, 121 Md. 567 . It is well settled that, before the court will take a ease from the consideration, of a jury, it must be satisfied that the evidence is so slight and inconclusive that no rational mind could infer from it tire fact sought to be established. 9 Corpus Juris, 586, 611; Parker v. Power, 127 Md. 598 ; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Dornberg, 135 Md. 125 ; Burke v.