Bissonnette v. Keyes

• Decision Date: 01 February 1946
• Citation: 64 N.E.2d 926,319 Mass. 134
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: BISSONNETTE v. KEYES et al.

319 Mass. 134

64 N.E.2d 926

BISSONNETTE

v.KEYES et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Feb. 1, 1946.

Bill in equty by Origene M. Bissonnette against Fred E. Keyes and another to rescind a contract by which plaintiff agreed to purchase a dairy farm, and to recover a deposit paid on account of the price. From a decree dismissing the bill as against the defendant Keyes, the plaintiff appeals.

Decree reversed, insofar as it relates to the defendant Keyes, with directions.Appeal from Superior Court, Hampden County; Burns, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and QUA, DOLAN, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.

E. S. Searle and S. Keedy, both of Springfield, for plaintiff.

No appearance for defendant.

QUA, Justice.

This is a bill in equity to rescind a contract in writing by which the plaintiff had agreed to purchase a dairy farm in Ware, and to recover a deposit of $1,000 which the plaintiff had paid on account of the price.

The facts appear from findings of material facts made by the trial judge. The defendant Fred M. Keyes, a real estate broker, purporting to act in behalf of the defendant Thomas J. Biatek, interested the plaintiff in the farm, and on October 23, 1943, the plaintiff and Keyes made an agreement in writing whereby the plaintiff agreed to buy the farm for $12,000. This agreement is very informal, but we think that it was sufficient to embody a completed contract of purchase and sale. The agreement was signed by the plaintiff and by the defendant Keyes, who added the single word ‘Agent’ after his signature. The only mention of the defendant Biatek in the agreement was in the description of the farm as the ‘Tom Biasike farm.’ Nothing else appeared in the body of this instrument to indicate who the seller was. By the terms of the agreement the purchase included the stock, tools, and hay. Upon the signing of this agreement the plaintiff paid the deposit of $1,000 to Keyes. Thereafter, on or about November 11, 1943, the large stable and hay barn on the premises and the hay therein were totally destroyed by fire, leaving the farm useless to the plaintiff. Soon after this the plaintiff learned that the defendant Biatek had sold the cattleto others. Because of the fire and what he had heard about the sale of the cattle the plaintiff refused to go on with the agreement and demanded a return of his deposit. Keyes tendered the $1,000 he had received to Biatek, who accepted $500 and told Keyes to keep the remaining $500 on account for his services as broker in finding a customer. Biatek returned to the plaintiff the $500 he had received and was given a covenant not to sue. Keyes acted in good faith throughout.

The bill was taken for confessed against Biatek, and a final decree was entered against him rescinding the agreement but not requiring him to return more than the $500 he had already returned. The decree dismissed the bill as against Keyes. The plaintiff appeals. The only issue is whether Keyes should return to the plaintiff the $500 which the plaintiff has not yet received.

The plaintiff was entitled to...