Burr v. Beacon Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1905
• Citation: 188 Mass. 131,74 N.E. 300
• Parties: BURR v. BEACON TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

188 Mass. 131

74 N.E. 300

BURR v. BEACON TRUST CO. et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 18, 1905

COUNSEL

Chas.

W. Bartlett and Hale & Dickerman, for plaintiff.

Dolan & Dolan, for defendants.

OPINION

LORING J.

This is an action to recover a commission of $500 which the defendant, through its president, promised to pay to the plaintiff if he would get some one to take up loans to the amount of $60,000 which the defendant had made to one Carden on pledge of certain wool as collateral. The evidence warranted the jury in finding that the plaintiff was a clerk employed by Carden, and that on one occasion he called at the defendant's banking rooms in Carden's behalf as to $25,000 of this loan, which Carden wished to have renewed. In connection with this application of Carden for a renewal, the wool was valued, and the defendant claimed that the value was not sufficient to make the loan a desirable one. At an interview in this connection between the plaintiff, acting for Carden, and the defendant's president, the president offered to pay the plaintiff $500 if he would get some one to take up the whole loan. This was reported by the plaintiff to Carden, and Carden 'told him to go ahead and see if he could do it that he would be very glad to have him earn the money.' The loan was taken up by some one procured by the plaintiff and the $500 was demanded by him of the defendant. Upon the defendant's refusing to pay it, this action was brought.

The jury were told in substance that, to recover, the plaintiff must satisfy them that he was employed by the defendant, and with the understanding that he should be paid for his services by the defendant; that if he attempted to act for or serve, directly or indirectly, both seller and buyer, he could not recover; and that he must show that he had no interests of any party in the transaction antagonistic to those of the defendant. In addition, the defendant asked for the following rulings, which were refused: '(1) Upon all the evidence, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.' '(6) The plaintiff must show that in rendering any services to the defendant he acted in entire good faith towards the defendant, and solely in its interest, and not in the interest of any other person.' '(8) The plaintiff must be considered the agent of the party by whom he was originally employed.' '(10) If you find that the plaintiff at or during the time of the transaction was in the employ of Carden, and was acting within the scope of his employment in his dealings with the defendant Gale, you may assume that he was working in the...