Butler v. Ouwelant

• Decision Date: 19 April 1916
• Citation: 90 Conn. 434,97 A. 310
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BUTLER et al. v. OUWELANT.

97 A. 310

90 Conn. 434

BUTLER et al.

v. OUWELANT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 19, 1916.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Edward L. Smith, Judge.

Action by George S. Butler and another against Joseph Ouwelant. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Edward T. Canfield, of Hartford, for appellant. Stanley W. Edwards, of Hartford, for appellees.

RORABACK, J. The following facts were found: In March, 1913, the defendant was the owner of a farm of about 100 acres, upon which he lived and conducted a general farming business. The plaintiffs at this time and ever since have been real estate brokers with an office in the city of Hartford. About March 1, 1913, the defendant listed his farm with the plaintiffs, as such real estate brokers, for sale. The contract between the parties regarding the sale was an oral one. The defendant's price for his property was $12,000. The plaintiffs were to receive a commission of $500 in the event of a sale. The plaintiffs advertised the farm in Hartford and New York newspapers, sublisted it with New York brokers, exhibited the place to prospective customers, and performed the usual services of real estate brokers. The defendant on different occasions visited the plaintiffs' office inquiring as to the progress of their efforts in making a sale. During this period the plaintiffs did not have the exclusive right to sell the property, as the defendant had listed it with other brokers and agents for sale, which fact was known to the plaintiffs. In the spring of 1914 the defendant reduced the size of his farm, which was to be sold, 15 acres. The price of the remaining 85 acres was to be $12,000. The plaintiffs' commission was to remain the same as before the change was made in the size of the farm. The plaintiffs, following the directions of the defendant, readvertised the property as an 85-acre farm. On July 16, 1914, Otto Jensen, a milk dealer of Hartford, called at the office of the plaintiffs in response to the plaintiffs' advertisement relating to this place, which had been inserted in the Hartford Courant. Jensen then made inquiries of the plaintiffs concerning the property. Butler informed Jensen as to the location of the farm and its price. Jensen told Butler that he knew in a general way of the location of this property. Butler at this time could not accompany Jensen to examine the place, and Jensen said he would go alone. Immediately thereafter' Jensen and his wife went to the defendant's farm. The defendant, who at this time did not know that the plaintiffs had sent Jensen, refused to converse with him or show him the place because of some ill feeling he had toward Jensen. The plaintiffs sent no notice to the defendant concerning this proposed call by Jensen. Jensen did not return to the plaintiffs' office nor communicate with them as to his visit, but he informed an intimate friend, Andrew Peterson, of his visit to the defendant's place, his purpose in going there, and who it was that sent him there. Peterson was not a real estate broker. He was a milk dealer and farmer. Immediately after Jensen had given this information to Peterson he, with full knowledge that the plaintiffs, as the defendant's agents, had interested Jensen in the property, and had offered it to him for sale, went. to the defendant, with whom he was well acquainted, and obtained from the defendant the promise of a commission of 2 per cent. on the selling price of $12,000 if he found a customer for the farm. Immediately thereafter Peterson and Jensen, without the plaintiffs' knowledge, made a visit to the defendant's place and examined it. On July 25, 1914, Peterson and Jensen, without the plaintiffs' knowledge, met the defendant at the defendant's farm, and Jensen agreed to purchase the property at $12,000, and gave the defendant a check for $100 upon the amount of the purchase price. The following day the parties executed a bond for a deed. Before the payment of the $100 Peterson and Jensen discussed the connection of Butler with the sale. No other services were rendered by the plaintiffs in the sale of the property except those just described. Shortly after July 27, 1914, the defendant came to the plaintiffs' office, when Butler asked the defendant whether certain customers, and among them Jensen, had been out to his farm. The defendant then informed Butler that Jensen had agreed to buy the place. Butler notified the defendant that Jensen was the plaintiffs' customer and that they claimed a commission for the sale of the farm. On August 1, 1914, both of the plaintiffs went to the defendant's house and told him of the facts and claimed their commission. On or about September 2, 1914, the defendant executed a deed transferring his property to Jensen, and on this day the defendant paid...