
    No. 395
    STEMAN et v. KARCH
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton, Co.
    Decided June 14, 1926
    480. EVIDENCE — Where contract was entered into in 1920 to sell real estate and it is claimed that after the expiration of the contract the seller requested the agent to resume activities, the evidence herein was not clear enough to sustain judgment against seller and for broker.
    Attorneys — Wm. J. Stenger, and Buchwalter, Headley & Smith for Steman; Clark & Mc-Cauley for Karch; all of Cincinnati.
   CUSHING, J.

HeJiiry P. Karch brought an action in the Haraiáfcn Common Pleas against Louis Steman et, claiming that he had a verbal contract with them to procure a purchaser for real estate described in the petition, and that, in consideration of his advertising the property, and using his best efforts to sell same, Steman et agreed to pay him a commission of 4% of the selling price, should he obtain a purchaser therefor. He claims he procured a purchaser for $15,-500 and claims $620 with interest.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. At the trial the only evidence offered by Karch as to a contract was a written agreement entered into with him in 1920 by Louis Steman in which it provided that he sell the property at $17,000 provided it be sold within the year 1920.

2. Karch, offered the contract in evidence and stated that early in the year 1921 one rr. the Stemans asked him to resume his efforts to sell the property, there being no evidence in the record that 4% commission was agreed upon, etc.

3. There was a denial that "Steman requested Karch to resume his efforts to sell'the property and because of the uncertainty of the evidence on the question of establishing a contract not pleaded, our opinion is that verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

(Buchwalter and Hamilton, J., concur.)  