Chamberlain v. New England Dressed Meat & Wool Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1932
• Citation: 279 Mass. 462,181 N.E. 719
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: CHAMBERLAIN v. NEW ENGLAND DRESSED MEAT & WOOL CO.

279 Mass. 462

181 N.E. 719

CHAMBERLAIN

v.NEW ENGLAND DRESSED MEAT & WOOL CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 28, 1932.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederic B. Greenhalge, Judge.

Action by Frank W. Chamberlain, Jr., against the New England Dressed Meat & Wool Company. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

A. W. Wunderly, of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. Wise, of Winthrop, for defendant.

WAIT, J.

This is an action at law brought by a real estate broker to recover a commission for obtaining a customer ready, able and willing, as he alleges, to purchase certain real estate at a price and upon terms acceptable to the defendant. At the trial to a jury the presiding judge, at the close of the plaintiff's case, directed a verdict for the defendant. The case is before us upon the plaintiff's exception to the order directing the verdict.

The evidence, put most strongly for the plaintiff, in substance, was as follows: The defendant is a corporation engaged in selling meat and wool at wholesale. It owned a mortgage on real estate of a Mrs. Craft, which it held as security for a debt due to it. It desired to have this realty sold so that it might obtain the $4,575.36 which was due. One Brock, its credit manager, in whose name the mortgage stood, telephoned to the plaintiff that the corporation wanted to dispose of the property; asked what he thought it was worth; said that ‘they were willing to listen to any kind of an offer within reason’; and asked him to do his utmost to procure a customer. The plaintiff told Brock he thought he could get about $7,000 for the property; and Brock, in reply, said if ‘the defendant had to sell [it] at that price, they would sell it to some person in their employ.’ About a week later the plaintiff telephoned to Brock that he had a customer he thought he could interest in the property at around $7,500. In reply Brock said that his coemployee would pay $7,200. The plaintiff thereupon said: ‘If I sold the house for Seventy-five hundred * * * dollars and took Two hundred * * * dollars as a commission, netting you Seventy-three hundred * * * dollars, would that be perfectly all right?’ and Brock answered that it would. Later, after Brock had denied so stating, the plaintiff testified that Brock had said: ‘That would be fine.’ The plaintiff also testified that Brock told him there was a co-operative bank mortgage for $4,800 on the premises and he wanted cash above that; and in cross-examination that Brock told him: ‘I will let you know * * * if there is any change as far as their employee is concerned.’ He asserted this was all that was said between them at that time; and that he did not hear from Brock again after March 19, 1931, until March 21. On March 21, an employee of the plaintiff showed the property to a Mrs. Upton, and obtained her signature to an offer to the plaintiff of $7,700 for the premises to be paid $2,900 in cash and $4,800 ‘in a 1st mortgage existing at 6%.’ This was accompanied with $25 ‘to bind this offer’ and ‘to be returned to me if this offer is not accepted by the owner on or before 12 noon on Mar. 23, 1931.’ It concluded: ‘On acceptance, I agree to sign your usual purchase and sales agreement with the owner, and make an additional deposit of $475 00/100.’ This agreement signed by Mrs. Upton he took that evening to the home of Brock; gave him the agreement and told him that the house had been sold for him. Brock looked at it, and said it was the best offer they had so far received. Later he gave Brock the $25 and took a receipt signed by Brock which read: ‘Mar. 21, 1931 Received from F. W. Chamberlain, Jr. Twenty-five dollars Deposit received from Mrs. Upton On acct. of sale of house at 44 Gloucester Street, Arlington,...