
    Croll v. McCullough, Appellant.
    
      Contracts — Commission for sale of real estate — Case for jury.
    
    In an action on a contract to recover commissions for the sale of real estate where the only defense was that a purchaser had not been procured within the time specified by the contract, and the evidence on this question was conflicting, the case was held to be for the jury and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff was sustained.
    Argued Oct. 8, 1913.
    Appeal, No. 2, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 210, on verdict for plaintiff in case of L. B. Croll and Alex. Montgomery v. James McCullough, Jr.
    Before Fell, C. J., Bbown, Mestbezat, Pottee, Elkin, Stewabt and Moschziskeb, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit to recover commissions on the sale of real estate. Before Williams, P. J.
    
      The facts appear ¡by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
    Verdict for plaintiff for $3,175.75 and judgment thereon. .Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were answers to points, various instructions to the jury and various rulings of the trial judge.
    
      B. L. Bawlston, y-ti.'ii him H. A. Heilman, for appellant.
    
      C. E. Harrington, with him Boyd 8. Henry, for appellee.
    November 7, 1913:
   Pee Cubiam,

This action was to recover on a contract for commissions for the sale of real estate. Neither the making of the contract nor the hams thereof were in dispute, but it was contended by the defendant that a purchaser had not been procured within the time specified by the contract, who in good faith had offered to buy the real estate and who was financially able to do so. The questions raised by this contention were questions of fact for the jury, and we find no error in the manner in which they were submitted.

The judgment is affirmed.  