
    F. C. BOWEN v. E. R. PRIEBE.
    
    February 24, 1911.
    Nos. 16,731—(54).
    Broker’s commission.
    
      Bold: (1) The complaint stated a cause of action; (2) the evidence supported plaintiff’s claim; (3) the court.did not err in its charge; (4) there was no variance between pleading and proof. [Reporter.]
    Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $50 for services rendered in procuring a purchaser for furniture and fixtures in, and the business of, a certain rooming- house. The complaint alleged that plaintiff, at the request of defendant, found a purchaser for the furniture, fixtures and business, and that the sale was effected for the price and on the terms demanded by defendant; that plaintiff performed all the services required of him by defendant relative to the finding of the purchaser, and that plaintiff had performed his agreement; that defendant promised to pay plaintiff $50 for his services, but that no part thereof had been paid. The answer was a general denial, except the admission of the ownership of the furniture and fixtures and that defendant was conducting certain rooming houses. The case was tried before Waite, J., who denied defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $50.40. From an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      A. G. Middelstadt, for appellant.
    
      Uofstede cC- Johnston, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 129 N. W. 1055.
    
   Per Curiam.

Action to recover $50, alleged to have been agreed upon as compensation for finding a purchaser for defendant’s rooming house, furniture, and fixtures.

1. The complaint states a cause of action.

2. The evidence supports plaintiff’s claim that defendant agreed to pay him $50 if defendant succeeded in exchanging his property for certain real estate belonging to a third party introduced by plaintiff.

3. The court did not err in instructing the jury that it was not uncommon to change a contract to sell property into a contract of exchange of property, with the understanding that the commission to the agent remain the same.

4. That there was a variance between the proofs and the -complaint was not ■raised at the trial.

5. No errors in the charge or rulings.

Affirmed.

Simpson, J., .took no part.  