Cassidy v. Congdon

• Decision Date: 15 January 1936
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CASSIDY v. CONGDON et al.

183 A. 1

121 Conn. 68

CASSIDY v. CONGDON et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 15, 1936

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Litchfield County; Elbert B Hamlin, Judge.

Action by Mrs. E. G. Cassidy against Elizabeth L. Congdon and others, to recover the commission for sale of real estate. From a judgment against defendants Palmer and Watson executors and trustees under the will of Caroline H. Palmer they appeal.

No error.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

David Cramer, of Torrington, for appellants Palmer and others.

Harry J. Beardsley and Michael V. Blansfield, both of Waterbury, for appellee.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover a commission as a real estate broker based upon the sale of a farm in Oxford by the defendants Palmer and Watson, executors and trustees under the will of Caroline H. Palmer, to the defendant Congdon. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant Congdon, but against the other defendants. The present appeal is taken by them from the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict against them, which they claim to have had no reasonable support in the evidence. There was no antecedent employment of the plaintiff by them, and her right to recover must rest upon the rendition of services by her in procuring the sale of the property under the expectation that these defendants would compensate her for them, and the acceptance by them of the benefit of those services, knowing that she had this expectation. Canfield v. Sheketoff, 104 Conn. 28, 33, 132 A. 401; Summa v. Dereskiawicz, 82 Conn. 547, 551, 74 A. 906; Weinhouse v. Cronin, 68 Conn. 250, 253, 36 A. 45.

The jury might reasonably have found the following facts: On May 15, 1934, the son of the defendant Congdon came to the plaintiff's home in Woodbury, where she conducted a real estate agency, looking for a farm which his mother might purchase. The plaintiff showed him a number of farms, and among them that in Oxford which the defendant Congdon did in fact purchase. The plaintiff had learned from an advertisement that this farm was for sale, and, when she and Congdon visited it, they were shown about by Harold Dille who lived upon and had charge of it. As they were leaving, Dille gave them the name and address of the defendant Watson. On hearing the name, Congdon remarked that he knew him and would see him, whereupon ...