Rathbun v. McLay

Decision Date18 December 1903
Citation76 Conn. 308,56 A. 511
PartiesRATHBUN et ux. v. McLAY.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Leverett M. Hubbard, Judge.

Action by Roland R. Rathbun and wife against James McLay, Jr. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charles H. Fowler, for appellant.

Robert C. Stoddard, for appellees.

PRENTICE, J. This is an action of fraud. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant being a real estate agent, accepted an agency from the plaintiffs to purchase for them certain real estate, which purchase was effected, and that in the performance of that agency he was unfaithful to his trust, deceiving his principals with falsehood, and thereby obtaining from them, for himself, the sum of $500, under the false pretense that it was a part of the purchase money paid the seller. The answer consisted of a general denial and a special defense. The plaintiffs offered evidence in support of all the allegations of the complaint. The defendant sought, conformably to his special defense, to show that no agency was created, that the negotiations between him and the plaintiffs were had between them as seller and purchasers, and that he simply took advantage of his means of knowledge to sell for a greater price than he was able to buy the property for in order to consummate the sale. The case thus, as the court correctly Instructed the Jury, resolved itself primarily into a question of fact as to whether or not the claimed agency did or did not exist. The court charged the jury that, if they found that there was no agency, then their verdict must be in favor of the defendant. As the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs, it follows that they found that the agency existed. This being so, the defendant's admitted conduct constituted a palpable and flagrant, actionable fraud. His acceptance of the agency imposed upon him the duty of honesty in his intercourse with his principals, and fidelity to their interests. By no indirection or circumvention, by no adroit scheming or concealed stratagem, could he profit at their expense. He had entered into a confidential relation, and he was bound to keen to the straight line of good faith and fair dealing.

The burden of the defendant's complaint, as stated in the reasons of appeal, is that the court admitted parol evidence to establish this agency, and declined to instruct the jury that the agency in question was one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Cyphers v. Allyn
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1955
    ...Utah. Code Ann. § 61-2-6(b) (1953).4 The following cases deal with dishonest action on the part of the real estate brokers. Rathbun v. McLay, 76 Conn. 308, 56 A. 511; Mucke v. Solomon, 79 Conn. 297, 64 A. 738; Schleifenbaum v. Rundbaken, 81 Conn. 623, 71 A. 899; Herzog v. Cooke, 99 Conn. 36......
  • Stagg v. Lawton.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1946
    ...service. It was not an agreement for the sale of real estate, or any interest therein, or concerning the same.’ Rathbun v. McLay, 76 Conn. 308, 310, 56 A. 511, 512; and see Cone v. Pedersen, 131 Conn. 374, 378, 40 A.2d 274. If, in such a case as this, the broker based his right to recover u......
  • Brazo v. Real Estate Commission
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1979
    ...Stagg v. Lawton, 133 Conn. 203, 209, 49 A.2d 599 (1946); Cone v. Pedersen, 131 Conn. 374, 377, 40 A.2d 274 (1944); Rathbun v. McLay, 76 Conn. 308, 310, 56 A. 511 (1903). Under § 20-328-1 of the commission regulations, which requires that a listing agreement "properly (identify) the property......
  • Roberts v. Ross
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 29, 1965
    ...no application to agreements to compensate agents or brokers in connection with the purchase or sale of real estate. Rathbun v. McLay, 1903, 76 Conn. 308, 56 A. 511, 512; Friedman v. Suttle, 1906, 10 Ariz. 57, 85 P. 726; Annotation 151 A.L.R. 648; 12 Am.Jur.2d Brokers § 38; Restatement, Age......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT