Crowninshield v. Foster

• Decision Date: 20 October 1897
• Parties: CROWNINSHIELD v. FOSTER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

169 Mass. 237

47 N.E. 879

CROWNINSHIELD v. FOSTER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

October 20, 1897

COUNSEL

Hutchins & Wheeler, for plaintiff.

Moorefield Storey, for defendant.

OPINION

ALLEN J.

It was held in Dowling v. Morrill, 165 Mass. 491, 43 N.E 295, that a broker who does not have the exclusive sale of real estate does not become entitled to a commission merely by bringing the property to the attention of the person who finally buys it but he must also show that his services were the efficient or effective means of bringing about the actual sale. In the present case the plaintiff brought the property to the attention of Allen, the person who finally bought it, and obtained from him two different offers, both of which were rejected by the defendant; and there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff thereupon suspended his efforts, and that afterwards another broker, in ignorance that the plaintiff had treated with Allen, procured from the latter another and different offer, which the plaintiff accepted. With reference to this state of things the court instructed the jury as follows: "The mere fact that Mr. Foster got a little more, if he did, in the way of trade, than what Mr Crowninshield got offers for from Mr. Allen, I do not think is decisive,--still it is one of the things that you may consider,--because I do not think it would debar a broker from obtaining his commission, if he was otherwise entitled to it, if he got offers for a smaller sum, if it was substantially for the same amount, or if he got more, without using the word 'substantially,' than what he told the broker he would sell it for." The plaintiff afterwards asked for a specific instruction, as follows: "If the jury find that the defendant employed the plaintiff to bring him offers for property, and the plaintiff interested Allen in the property and communicated Allen's offer to the defendant, which the defendant rejected, and then the defendant renewed the same negotiations, either himself or through another broker, and finally accepted substantially the same offer from Allen as had been made by the plaintiff the plaintiff is entitled to recover. If the plaintiff, being employed by the defendant to find a customer for the Foster estate, found Allen ready and willing to [buy?], but giving in part payment therefor his apartment houses, and, on presenting the offer of Allen, was informed by the defendant that he would not sell for the apartment houses on any...