Cucullu v. Emmerling
63 U.S. 83 (1859)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Cucullu v. Emmerling, 63 U.S. 22 How. 83 83 (1859)

Cucullu v. Emmerling

63 U.S. (22 How.) 83

Syllabus

Where, according to the practice in Louisiana, the facts of the case are stated by the court below in the nature of a special verdict, an objection that the contract sued upon could not be proved by one witness only comes too late when made for the first time in this Court.

According to that practice, the judge below finds facts, and not evidence of those facts.

In 1857, Emmerling, a resident of New Orleans, an alien subject of the Grand Duke of Hesse Darmstadt, filed his petition in the circuit court alleging that Cucullu had employed him as a broker to sell an estate. The cause was submitted to the court below, which found the following facts, viz.:

Page 63 U. S. 84

"The plaintiff, Louis Emmerling, a resident of the City of New Orleans, and an alien subject of the Grand Duke of Hesse Darmstadt, brings this suit against the defendant, a citizen of Louisiana, to recover the sum of twenty-seven hundred dollars which he alleges is due him as the amount of his commissions on a sale effected by him as a broker."

"The court finds that the defendant, Cucullu, offered his plantation and slaves for sale for the sum of one hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars, on the following terms, viz., the purchaser to pay in cash the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars and assume the payment of a note of twenty thousand dollars, payable on the 1st and 4th of February, 1858, and for the residue of the price the purchaser to pay $13,333.33 1/3 on the 10th and 13th of December, 1858; $13,333.33 1/3 on the 10th and 13th of December, 1859; $13,333.33 1/3 on the 10th and 13th of December, 1860; $13,333.33 1/3 on the 10th and 13th of December, 1861; $13,333.33 1/3 on the 10th and 13th of December, 1862; $13,333.33 1/3 on the 10th and 13th of December, 1863 -- the six last-mentioned sums to bear interest at the rate of five percent per annum until maturity and interest at the rate of eight percent after maturity until paid."

"The court finds that the plaintiff, Emmerling, in his capacity as broker, offered to find a purchaser for the plantation and slaves, and that he opened a negotiation with A. W. Walker, who finally purchased the same on the terms above mentioned; that the written contract of sale attached to the petition is in the handwriting of the plaintiff, and signed by the defendant and Walker."

"The court further finds that while there was no direct or positive proof that the defendant Cucullu promised to pay the plaintiff his commissions for negotiating the sale, yet that he did recognize the services of the said plaintiff, and his own liability to pay for those services, in a conversation which he had with the said plaintiff in the presence of A. W. Walker, the purchaser of the property."

"The court further finds that it was through the intervention of the plaintiff, as broker, that the sale of the property was effected. The facts upon which the foregoing conclusions of

Page 63 U. S. 85

the court are founded were mainly furnished in the testimony of said A. W. Walker. The witness, Guyol, the notary public before whom the title to the property was passed, also proved that the defendant, Cucullu, inquired of him the amount of the commissions charged by the broker, and that he (Guyol) answered that the amount was two percent on the price of the property. The usual rate at which broker's commissions for like services are charged is two percent, as appears from the testimony of several brokers who were examined on the trial. It is therefore ordered and adjudged, that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the sum of twenty-seven hundred dollars, the amount of his commissions as broker, and it is further ordered that the defendant pay the costs of this suit."

"THEODORE H. McCALEB, U.S. judge"

After an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, the defendant sued out a writ of error, and brought the case up to this Court.

Page 63 U. S. 86

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.