GR Wo. BID Seer 12, 1421 Jwio Dawn vs. batorio be Vimo & Co. Cora ¥- Recko for appellant, Comillas 4 Cardenas for defendant appellant. JWnnson,t Note. of Me cose: Koon for Kecovery OF Sur OF MONEY worth 40,000.00, alleged to be Hine WolUe OF Setvices yendored to the defendant by tre Paintift Os a looker. Forks: The PALNKE olleges Mak he was Wired [oy we defendant cOmPAY I He mont of bugusk Als, Haru ts mOnager ntorio Brimo, 10 WOK for @ ‘Hurcraser of iAs Fogiory yawn as “Holland Binetican Oil Co." for the Sum of #\,200,000.09- By 4050" Yrereok, the deferdant promised to pay the POINAEE a COMMissON of Five (S) RertENt fom Are 200,000.00 surn ab comperisation fOr wis Services \é Whe Sale, Wos consummated oF iF He PAINKE gwosld find a purchaser teody,oble and willing *O ‘ouy soid Gerety for tne oloresaid som Gulosequently,, Ane gamit Found sucln a gurcnoser , our thar te dekendant refused to CN tne said focrory without any justitiole moMvE OF YeaSOn trercfor and WNNOUK hosing Previously neMKied Ane PaNttF of RS desistanae o¢ vorialion in the price, ond Kerms of we Sale. The defendant intoryosed ©. Qgnewl denial to Ye Pins complaint The Hon: Judge, ater ond contideting me eddence adduced duving, the ARON of Bre COUCE, rendered A judagrnent in favor & tne, Poink& ong oWered re defendant company to Pay Fea,00000, UiNh Coes. Hence, Mis appeal Tsone: Werther 0¢ nok tre Plain hod performed ail Anat ‘ae, dequieed ok Me Wawa entite, Vim 4o teaver tre commission agseed upon (NS). Held: bs Cutled Gom the fas case, + MEE Wwideed Round Someone, who tos ws 0 arene a Foomry Ror We SUM OF Fi,190,000.00+ Hever, ne, defendant apve 00 Tied period 40 Gnd a purchaser ond anokher loveler wos ale negokating ame sole. the other br0ver SOUNd Nowe AYE? Who OrOVOIAt oe Bony fe Fetes 00. Under Swe ProokS in Hhis case, nos! can be said AS to wha vit dutomnlched iy shat te Wad four eee ale Rae wave bought ne defendants Rackory iG the defen had vst Gd iF someone else. The enidence done nt Snow Yrat Star bra Oi Hill (Yhe Would-be quence Wad definitely decided 40 ouy Ire, property | 4 tee Kited Grice OF F,200,000,00. me eeesonThe Come woked ough Mat, according to the plintifl cum Aeskinony Me defendant ooyeed ond Promised to Pay him & Commission K 5 per cent provided Wottne plainkee Could sed Pre FacOry of 190,000.00. Tx was also noted he ant we PAMKH Wog ocomplished by way performance, OF WIS conack wos eat be Wad found a Peon who might Wave lorouaine the Factory in question Od nor tre defendant sod ik to someone else: Under Wese circumstances it 1S difficult 40 See now Me Paint Con Yecover anything in tre Premiges The Plaintiss ockion is Not one for damages for loreadn & contract; I Isan action 40 NECOVEK “re, teasonobe, voc OF SerCES Yordered. This 1s Mmmstalable in NOM he PaMHES comoaint and Wis Acsimony during, the ial: Tere Is no deay snowing Mat Me Poin, by his ‘Services! Yestowed Weretits upon the Oxtendant to entile im 40 Recover From the latter ene Sum OF {p0,000:00. It Is Ferfeckly, Geox ond undisputed Anak Wis"sewices" did vot in any way contitoute, towards toanging, deout We sale of tre Factory In Question. Me Wos nok “ANE eRicient agent or Ye precuring, couse Of tre Sale.” The Court sald. citing several jurisprudences pertinent to the case of Wow, in Anis wise: “The lorckor must be the citicient Oagent or He ProCMri™® couse OF the Eole-The means Employed ey wim ond Wis Efforts wust reculk in te Salle. He musk Sind We purchaser, and the sale must Proceed GO WIS efor, ackng as wroker.* Dispesitive Prion: Te judgment aeeeated From iS revoked And defendant is dlosoed rom all Valoility under tre, POINKKES complaint, with costs ogpinst PlaNnHsf.