
    Ludlow v. Dole, appellant.
    
      Evidence—immaterial testimony — Discretion of court as to repetition of testimony— Variance—proof of specific agreement to establish quantum meruit.
    
    In an action for commissions for the sale of real estate, the defense was that the property had been sold through the instrumentality of one A, and not that of plaintiffs. A had testified that the property was purchased for Gh and a firm. Held, that evidence showing that the firm expended money upon the property after purchase was immaterial, as was also evidence of transactions subsequent to the purchase between GJ. and the firm in relation to the property.
    A testified to a fact which Gh denied. Held, that the trial court had discretion to exclude the testimony of A, re-affirming the fact.
    The complaint was upon a quantum meruit, the evidence showed a price agreed upon of the same amount. Held, that an instruction to the jury that they could not give a verdict for less than the amount claimed was correct. The specific contract fixing the price for the services became the quantum meruit. King v. Brown, 3 Hill, 485; Nones v. Homer, 3 Hilt. 116; Nells v. Vestmli, 3 Keyes, 153.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The action was brought by Edward H. Ludlow and others against Nathaniel Dole to recover commissions for alleged services in the sale of defendant’s real estate.
    
      W. W. Mies, for appellant.
    
      J. H. & B. F. Watson, for respondents.
   Brady, J.

The only material points passed upon in the opinion are fully noticed in the head-note, and a publication at length is not deemed necessary.

Judgment affirmed.  