E. B. Eames & Co. v. Mayo
Decision Date | 04 August 1922 |
Citation | 117 A. 802,97 Conn. 725 |
Parties | E. B. EAMES & CO. v. MAYO et al. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; L. P. Waldo Marvin Judge.
Action by E. B. Eames & Co. against Virginius J. Mayo and others. Plaintiffs were nonsuited in favor of the named defendant and from a refusal to set the nonsuit aside, they appeal. Affirmed.
Walter J. Walsh, of New Haven, for appellants.
Charles D. Lockwood, of Stamford, for appellee.
The plaintiff's evidence tended to prove that the plaintiffs were brokers and promoters; that the defendant, Virginius J. Mayo, agreed with them to pay them a commission in case they procured a purchaser, on terms stated, for the Mayo Radiator Company, which the defendant Mayo professed to own or control; that the plaintiffs induced the firm of C. R. Bergman & Co. to agree to purchase the property and business on the terms stated in a form of contract admitted in evidence as Exhibit B; that Bergman & Co. were ready, able, and willing to buy on the terms stated in Exhibit B; and that the defendant, Mayo, though he declared himself satisfied with the terms therein stated, refused to sign the contract, and afterwards sold the property and business to another purchaser.
The motion for judgment as of nonsuit was based on the grounds that Exhibit B did not meet the terms on which Mayo offered to sell; that the plaintiffs did not offer any substantial proof that Bergman & Co. were able to buy on the terms stated; and that Exhibit B did not contain any unconditional agreement to buy the property on the terms stated therein.
There is some evidence that Mayo professed to be satisfied with the terms of purchase set forth in Exhibit B; but, laying aside that question, and passing by the claim that the plaintiff failed to prove the ability of his customer to carry out the proposed bargain, it is clear that the plaintiffs wholly failed to prove that their customer was willing to buy. The evidence on that point is confined to proof that Bergman & Co. were willing to buy on the terms stated in Exhibit B, and that document, after reciting the terms of the proposed purchase, contains the following proviso:
" Eighth: The contract is made subject to verification as to the assets, orders on hand and condition generally of the Mayo Radiator Company, satisfactory to the party of the second part, which said approval is to be given within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reyher v. Finkeldey
...where prospective buyers' obligation to purchase was contingent upon their ability to sell their real estate); Eames v. Mayo , 97 Conn. 725, 727–28, 117 A. 802 (1922) (broker not entitled to commission where sale subject to verification of condition of defendant's business generally satisfa......
-
Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc.
...had been fulfilled, it cannot be said that the Peaks were ready, willing or able to buy on the terms prescribed. See Eames & Co. v. Mayo, 97 Conn. 725, 727, 117 A. 802. The plaintiffs, therefore, failed to prove their right to a There is no error. In this opinion the other judges concurred.......
- Valente v. Chieppo