Boyle v. Goldenberg
| Decision Date | 01 April 1929 |
| Citation | 165 N.E. 708,267 Mass. 24 |
| Parties | BOYLE v. GOLDENBERG. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; James H. Sisk, Judge.
Action by Frederick T. Boyle against Fannie Goldenberg. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Louis Luftman, of Dorchester, for defendant.
This is an action to recover upon a contract by which the defendant agreed to apy the plaintiff a commission if he procured a purchaser of certain real estate owned by the defendant and her sister.
The plaintiff testified in substance, that the defendant ‘gave him the details of the property, telling him that if he brought a buyer who was ready she would talk business.’ She told him there were sixteen apartments subject to a first mortgage of $35,000 and a second mortgage of $13,000, and that the income was $11,000 annually. She said her ‘asking price was $70,000.’ The plaintiff then asked her ‘if $70,000 was her bottom figure,’ and she replied, ‘Well, bring in a buyer and we will talk that later.’ The plaintiff also testified that he asked the defendant ‘about the cash,’ and she said the mortgages were $48,000, and it required $22,000 to do business. He said ‘that was a lot of money,’ and she answered, ‘Well, you bring down a buyer who would be interested to buy and we can arrange terms then.’
It could have been found that this talk between the plaintiff and defendant took place on the first Saturday of January, 1924. The plaintiff interviewed one Luzackas, and on the Sunday following the conversation with the defendant took him to see the property and introduced him to the defendant, and informed her that he brought him ‘to look at the property as a buyer.’ The defendant showed the apartments to Luzackas who said he would think it over and see the plaintiff later. The defendant said to Luzackas according to the plaintiff's testimony, ‘Mr. Boyle has a statement on it and he can give you the statement.’ The plaintiff gave Luzackas the statement showing the asking price, description, ‘amount of rentals and mortgages.’ He also brought another person to examine the property. The plaintiff was asked when he next saw the defendant and answered, ‘I brought buyers there all the time but they were never interested enough to go to see her, it must have been six weeks.’ The plaintiff further testified that he saw Luzackas about three days after he looked over the property, and that he was ‘frequently at Mr. Luzackas' offices.’ In March, 1924, the plaintiff learned that Luzackas had bought the property. He then saw the defendant and she said, ‘My son and I have decided not to sell the property.’ ‘You didn't sell it to him [Luzackas] when you had him here, my son called down later and sold it to him.’ The agreement of sale between the defendant and Luzackas was dated February 15, 1924.
[1][2] At the first conversation of the plaintiff and defendant, she told him if he brought a person who was ready to purchase the property the plaintiff would be paid the regular commission. The evidence showed that the property was sold to Luzackas for $66,000; and he testified that the sale to him was brought about by the defendant's son. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied and the jury found for the plaintiff. It has frequently been decided that a broker earns his commission if he is hired to find a customer and he finds one who is ready, able and willing to buy according to the terms of the owner. Fitzapatrick v. Gilson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonin v. Chestnut Hill Towers Realty Co.
...8 Although, when the evidence conflicts, it is for the jury to decide what the agreement of the parties was, Boyle v. Goldenberg, 267 Mass. 24, 27, 165 N.E. 708 (1929), McEvoy v. Ginsberg, 345 Mass. at 736, 189 N.E.2d 546, there must be some evidence that the terms of the engagement were in......
-
Bonin v. Chestnut Hill Towers Realty Corp.
...was and whether the plaintiff complied with it." McEvoy v. Ginsberg, 345 Mass. 733, 736, 189 N.E.2d 546 (1963). Boyle v. Goldenberg, 267 Mass. 24, 27, 165 N.E. 708 (1929). I perceive no reason why this rule should be inapplicable where the broker's services are rendered in connection with a......
-
Pacheco v. Medeiros
... ... were modified by him before such acceptance. See Stuart ... v. Valsom, 249 Mass. 149, 152, 143 N.E. 815, and cases ... cited; Boyle v. Goldenberg, 267 Mass. 24, 165 N.E ... 708. Compare Frankina v. Salpietro, 269 Mass. 292, ... 295, 168 N.E. 739. The case is unlike Pagum v ... ...
-
Julius Tofias & Co., Inc. v. John B. Stetson Co.
...438 (1961), the Supreme Judicial Court permitted a jury to find a similar limited contract of employment. See Boyle v. Goldenberg, 267 Mass. 24, 27, 165 N.E. 708 (1929); Bonin v. Chestnut Hill Towers Realty Corp., 392 Mass. 58, 72, 466 N.E.2d 90 (1984) (Abrams, J., dissenting). See also Res......