Cuddigan v. List
| Decision Date | 19 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 2940,2940 |
| Parties | Joseph P. CUDDIGAN v. Ken LIST et al. Eq. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
John T. Walsh, Providence, for complainant.
Goodman, Semonoff, Gorin & Blease, Ralph P. Semonoff, Martin M. Temkin, Providence, for respondents.
This is a bill in equity for specific performance of an alleged contract to sell a certain parcel of real estate in the city of East Providence and for incidental injunctive relief. After a hearing in the superior court on bill, answer and proof the trial justice entered a final decree granting the prayers of the bill. The cause is before us on the respondents' appeal from such decree.
The bill alleges in substance that on May 20, 1960, respondent Ken List, by his duly authorized agent, G. L. & H. J. Gross, Inc., entered into a written agreement with complainant to sell to him the premises in question for the sum of $16,600; that complainant delivered to the agent a check for $500 in part payment of the purchase price; that complainant was thereupon given possession of the premises; and that he has at all times been able, ready and willing to pay the balance of the purchase price, but respondents have refused to complete the agreement.
By their answer respondents denied that they had entered into a written agreement as alleged by complainant or that complainant had been let into possession. At the hearing in the superior court it was stipulated that respondent Ken List was the beneficial owner of the property which was held in the name of respondent Jean Drzal.
The issue raised by the pleadings is whether there was a written agreement authorized by respondents for the sale of the property in question.
A multiple listing agreement is in evidence as complainant's exhibit #3. It is signed by James C. Raleigh as the authorized representative of Ken List and grants to G. L. & H. J. Gross, Inc. 'the sole and exclusive right to sell' the property in question 'at a price of $18,500 and on the terms herein stated * * *.' The agreement also authorizes G. L. & H. J. Gross, Inc. 'to sell the real estate at the above stated price and terms.' According to its terms the agreement was to be in force from April 5, 1960 to July 5, 1960.
James C. Raleigh testified that he was an employee of the Gross firm; that it had the exclusive agency to sell the property; that on May 20, 1960, complainant offered him $16,600 for the property; that in complainant's presence he telephoned Mr. List to inquire whether he would accept $16,600; and that Mr. List said he would. He further testified that as a result of his conversation with Mr. List he drew up an instrument which is in evidence as complainant's exhibit #1, accepted a check for $500 as a deposit from complainant, and gave him a receipt for the same and a key to the house.
The receipt, complainant's exhibit #1, is dated May 20, 1960, and is signed by James C. Raleigh for 'G. L. & H. J. Gross, Inc., Agents.' It recites the receipt of the sum of $500 from complainant as a deposit on the purchase price and states that possession is to be delivered on or before July 6, 1960, and that the carpeting is not included. The receipt also states that taxes, rents, water and sewer rates shall be apportioned as of the date of the delivery of the deed. The last paragraph of the receipt reads as follows: 'Important: This deposit accepted subject to the approval of seller--and buyer--to conditions contained in an agreement of sale to be submitted by .....'
Mr. Raleigh testified that his signing exhibit #1 was for the purpose of giving complainant a receipt for the $500 and that there was a doubt in his mind as to whether there was a 'deal.' He further testified that complainant signed an agreement of sale which is in evidence as complainant's exhibit #4. This agreement was never signed by respondents.
The complainant testified that Mr. Raleigh agreed to sell him the property for $16,600 after his telephone conversation with Mr. List on May 20, 1960; that after the check and receipt were signed he told complainant that the property was his and he gave him a key to the house; that two nights later he signed an agreement of sale, complainant's exhibit #4; and that about ten days later he received a letter signed by Mr. Raleigh's secretary stating that Mr. List had returned the check and the agreement of sale and had informed them that he had accepted another offer. This letter is in evidence as complainant's exhibit #5.
After complainant rested, respondents made a motion to dismiss the bill. Upon the denial of such motion they moved to amend the answer for the purpose of pleading the statute of frauds. This motion was also denied. The respondents presented no testimony. After hearing arguments of counsel the trial justice entered a final decree granting complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacKnight v. Pansey, 78-33-A
...terms may accomplish this result. Words or conduct apart from the listing agreement may do so as well. Such a case was Cuddigan v. List, 93 R.I. 505, 177 A.2d 195 (1962), in which an agent with a "sole and exclusive right to sell" telephoned his principal to convey a purchase offer that was......
-
Leach v. Crucible Center Company
...written memorandum showing that in fact there was an oral agreement is sufficient to take the case out of the statute. Cuddigan v. List, 93 R.I. 505, 177 A.2d 195 (1962); Sholovitz v. Noorigian, supra. In this connection, four documents are relevant: (1) The check for $10,000, dated August ......
-
Centredale Inv. Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 75-1492
...facts in ruling on the applicability of the Statute of Frauds, see 2 Corbin on Contracts § 498 pp. 680-82, 4 cf. Cuddigan v. List, 93 R.I. 505, 177 A.2d 195 (1962), we think it committed error in concluding that the Statute of Frauds was satisfied and in permitting the enforcement of the al......
- Houlihan v. Murphy