Cramer v. Kolodney & Meyers, Inc.

• Citation: 129 Conn. 468,29 A.2d 579
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 14 December 1942
• Parties: CRAMER et al. v. KOLODNEY & MEYERS, Inc., et al.

29 A.2d 579

129 Conn. 468

CRAMER et al.

v. KOLODNEY & MEYERS, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 14, 1942.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Booth, Judge.

Action by Harry Cramer and others against Kolodney & Meyers, Incorporated, and others, to recover damages for the breach of an alleged contract to pay plaintiffs for obtaining a lease, brought to the superior court in Hartford County and tried to the court From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.

No error.

Before MALTBIE, C. J, and JENNINGS, ELLS, DICKENSON, and INGLIS, JJ.

Samuel H. Platcow, of New Haven, for appellants (defendants).

Maurice Poch and Milton D. Newman, both of Hartford, for appellees (plaintiffs).

ELLS, Judge.

The town of Winchendon owned an idle factory building and appointed an industrial committee for the purpose of attracting a new industry to occupy the plant and to employ people who formerly worked there and were on the relief rolls of the town. One of the plaintiffs was engaged in the business of locating such factories, and the three plaintiffs joined together for the purpose of obtaining a desirable tenant for the town of Winchendon. The trial court found that the plaintiff Kantrowitz interested R. Kolodney, president of the defendant corporations, in the possibility of acquiring a lease for a nominal figure and told him that the town would pay at least $5,000 as an inducement to establish an industry there, and that if negotiations resulted in securing a lease the plaintiffs would want $3,000 for their services; that Kolodney told Kantrowitz that he would take it up with his board of directors and would call him the next day; and that within a few days Kolodney told Kantrowitz that he had taken up the matter with his board of directors and that, if the proposition to acquire the property in question was accepted, he, Kantrowitz, would receive a check for $3,000. Soon thereafter the plaintiff Cramer told Kolodney that his companies could rent the factory in question at an annual rental of about $100 a year, that the people of the town might be able to raise $7,500 in addition to the attractive terms of the lease and that he and his partners wanted $3,000 for their work. Kolodney replied that his companies would pay the $3,000, if the lease was negotiated, and that the plaintiffs did not have to worry about their pay. Kolodney then asked if it would be possible to get more than $7,500 and Cramer replied that if the companies' ratings were as good as Kolodney claimed it was possible that the town might raise an additional $2,500. The plaintiffs introduced Kolodney to the industrial committee and to the property and performed very substantial services, and the defendant Kolodney & Meyers, Inc., leased the property for three years at an annual rental of $100 a year and occupied it. They also received approximately $10,000, which had been raised by a committee of citizens of the town. No correction can be made in this finding which would affect the result reached by the trial court.

The defendants claim that there is no evidence to support the finding that Kolodney, when he told Kantrowitz that he would take up the proposition with the directors, and when he said he had done so, knew the proposition included payment of $3,000 for the plaintiff's services, and they therefore claim that the directors did not know it, and that in any event the proposition was one for a gift and not a lease of the property. The evidence was conflicting, but there is enough reasonably to support the court's finding. It...