
    Darrow vs. Harlow.
    Contract : Proposition acted upon.
    
    1. H. offered to pay D. $100, if D. would find him a purchaser for his farm at a certain price. Held, that before learning that D. had acted upon the offer and secured a purchaser, H. might himself sell the farm without becoming.liable to D.
    2. D. informed H. that 0. would take the farm at the price named, and buy some of the chattels thereon, but added that he would ‘want some things put in the trade.” JSeld, that the terms of purchase, thus indicated, varying from those offered by H., he might thereafter sell to another without becoming liable to D.
    APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Booh County.
    Tbe complaint alleges that on tbe 28d of November, 1864, at Beloit, in said county, defendant agreed witb plaintiff that if tbe latter would find a purchaser for a certain farm belonging to said defendant, at a price there named, be would pay plaintiff $100; and that plaintiff found such a purchaser according to defendant’s instructions, whereby defendant became indebted, &c., and bad refused to pay. Answer, in denial. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that the agreement was made as alleged; that defendant wanted $85 per acre for the land; that be said be only wanted $1,000 or $2,000 in cash, &c.; that defendant left the next day for the state of New York; that on that same day (November 24tb), one O’Connor agreed with plaintiff that be would take the farm at $35 per acre, and would pay $5,000 in cash, and seven per cent, interest on the balance annually; and that plaintiff, on the 25tb of November, wrote to defendant informing him of O’Connor’s offer, and adding : “ You will write me at Beloit, by return mail, and say what you will do, and what I can say to him. You did not give me any terms, only to find you a customer, and you would give me $100. He will buy some things, and will want some things put in the trade,” &c. Plaintiff’s evidence tended further to show, that on defendant's return to Beloit, a few days after, be claimed to have sold bis farm to one Taylor, in New York; admitting that be bad received plaintiff’s letter on the 28th of November, and bad “made bis papers with Mr. Taylor ” on the 30th. Mr. O’Connor also testified that bis offer was for the land alone, and “ the talk about chattel property was all afterwards, and bad nothing to do with the land trade.” It was proven that Mr. Taylor bought the farm on the 30th of November, paying for it and the personal property thereon, exclusive of household furniture, $9,000, of which $1,000 was in cash. Defendant thereon moved for a nonsuit, which was denied. Defendant testified in bis own behalf that he did not authorize plaintiff to offer any other terms than cash; that plaintiff did not at the time agree to find him a customer; and that be did not receive plaintiff’s letter until the evening of November 30th, after be bad concluded the sale to Taylor.
    Verdict for the plaintiff; new trial denied; and from a judgment on the verdict defendant appealed.
    
      
      Todd & Converse, for appellant,
    contended that the pretended agreement'sued on was void for want of mutuality (12 Barb., 602; 10 id., 30S; 2 id., 351; 20 id., 151; 2 Pick, 578; 11 Mass,, 112; 21 Wend., 139; 1 Corns., 581; 4 Johns., 235); that there was no evidence that defendant’s proposition contemplated anything but a sale for cash; and that plaintiff’s letter, in stating that O’Connor would “want some things put in the trade,” showed that there was no absolute agreement to purchase on the terms proposed by defendant.
    
      Chas. Gt. Williams, for respondent,
    contended that the plain»-' tiff, having acted upon defendant’s offer, was entitled to recover, under the rule in Bycleshimer v. Van Antwerp, 13 Wis., 546.
   Downer, J.

Was the motion for a nonsuit rightly overruled ? If the letter of Darrow to Harlow conveyed the idea that O’Connor would, for a part of the personal property on the farm, and the farm, give only $35 per acre, then the nonsuit ought to have been granted; for Harlow had a right to act upon the letter, and if the terms of the proposed purchase therein set out were different from what he had authorized, then he could sell to another his farm without incurring any liability to Darrow. We are of opinion that the words in the letter, “He will buy some things, and want some things put in the trade,” did, taken in connection with what in the letter precedes them, convey the idea that some property other than the farm was to be included in the sale thereof at $35 per acre; and therefore we think a nonsuit should have been granted.

By the Court. — The judgment is reversed, and a venire denovo awarded.

The respondent moved for a rehearing.

Downer, J.

The respondent, having moved for a rehearing, contends that the court erred in holding that Harlow had a right to act on the letter of Darrow to him, inasmuch as Har low testified that be sold to Taylor bis farm on tbe day be received tbe letter, but before it was received by bim.

Barrow was not, by the agreement, to have the sole right to sell the farm, or find a purchaser for it. There is nothing in the agreement to preclude the defendant, who wished to sell bis farm, from finding himself a purchaser if be could. Such verbal contracts must receive a reasonable construction. And in this case we think there must be. implied an undertaking that the plaintiff was to "have the hundred dollars, if he, within a reasonable time, before the defendant himself sold his farm, found a customer who luould purchase it, and notified the defendant thereof. Taking this view of the contract, if the motion for a nonsuit bad been renewed after the evidence was closed, it would have been error not to have granted it. Lomer v. Meeker, 25 N. Y., 361, and authorities there cited.

By the Court — Motion denied.  