Broderick v. Hart

• Decision Date: 03 June 1922
• Citation: 97 Conn. 492,117 A. 491
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BRODERICK v. HART.

117 A. 491

97 Conn. 492

BRODERICK v. HART.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 3, 1922

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John P. Kellogg Judge.

Action by Andrew J. Broderick against Daniel T. Hart. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, he appeals, and defendant files a bill of exceptions. Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff on the verdict.

The plaintiff's testimony which the jury accepted was substantially as follows: He was not a real estate agent, but a jewelry salesman, and an intimate companion of the defendant. The property in question had been rented as a saloon, and in 1919 one Joslin, of the firm of Joslin &amp Allen, made some inquiry about the premises, and the plaintiff suggested that the firm of Joslin & Allen should buy the property. Joslin said they were ready to offer $50,000 for the premises, and that perhaps the plaintiff because of his personal relations to the defendant, might be able to bring the firm of Joslin & Allen and the defendant together on a sale. In the attempt to do so the plaintiff asked defendant whether the property was for sale, and stated that he had a customer who would offer $50,000 for it. The defendant declined to sell at that price, and further stated that he desired to give the present tenant, Murphy, the preference. Plaintiff's testimony as to what was then said runs as follows:

" I said, ‘ Get me right, Mr. Hart, I don't want to interfere with this building if Mr. Murphy wants it.’ I said, ‘ It is simply that I am only interested for what is in it, for the sale of it.’ He says, ‘ I am going to talk it over with Mr. Murphy, anyway.’ I said, ‘ Well, if Mr. Murphy does not want the property will you put a price on it?’ He said, ‘ Why, yes, Andy; I will.’ So as I started to leave him he called me back. He said, ‘ Andy, who wants this property?’ I said, ‘ Mr. Hart, if it would not interfere with the sale of this property anyway, why I would just as soon tell you. I am only interested in the commission; that is all; I am only interested in the commission that is in it.’ He said, ‘ It won't; if I sell it to your customer I will pay you the commission.’ I says, ‘ All right; it is Joslin and Allen." '

Within a few days the property was sold by defendant to Joslin & Allen, through a real estate broker, for $25,000 in cash and a purchase-money mortgage of $50,000, without any further notice to or action by the plaintiff, except that he reported back to Joslin & Allen that defendant would not sell for $50,000, and that defendant intended to give Murphy the preference, and if Murphy did not want it the defendant was going to put a price on it.

William E. Thoms, of Waterbury, for appellant.

Terrence F. Carmody and Maurice J. Healey, Jr., both of Waterbury, for appellee.

BEACH J.

On the plaintiff's appeal the question is whether the trial judge who observed the witnesses and the jury erred in setting the verdict aside, and ordinarily that would depend upon whether the jury might reasonably, upon the evidence have reached the conclusion which it did. In the present case, however, it appears that the action of the trial judge was not based...