Dyas v. Akston
| Decision Date | 28 November 1950 |
| Citation | 77 A.2d 79,137 Conn. 311 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DYAS et al. v. AKSTON. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Abram W. Spiro, Danbury, with whom, on the brief, was Irving Levine, Danbury, for appellants.
Louis Katz, Danbury, with whom, on the brief, was Lazarus S. Heyman, Danbury, for appellee.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
This is an action to recover a real estate broker's commission. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs which the trial court, upon motion, set aside. The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: The defendant owned a colonialtype dwelling house, guest cottage, caretaker's house, swimming pool and other outbuildings with about 100 acres of land in Ridgefield. She had not listed this property for sale with the plaintiffs but upon inquiry stated that she would sell for $60,000. The plaintiff Dyas had as prospective purchasers a Dr. and Mrs. Kingsbury. A meeting was arranged with the defendant, at which time the Kingsburys, with the defendant and Dyas, inspected the property. The Kingsburys were interested and made a second inspection in company with Dyas and Frank Bitting, a New Jersey banker and their financial adviser. The defendant was not present on this occasion. After a further inspection by Bitting, Dr. Kingsbury authorized Dyas to make an offer to the defendant of $50,000 in cash. This offer was communicated by telephone to the defendant and she said that she would entertain it but could not give a decision at that time. The following day she called Dyas and arranged a meeting at her apartment in New York. This information he communicated to Dr. Kingsbury. At Dr. Kingsbury's request Bitting attended this conference with Dyas.
The decision of the case turns upon what the jury could reasonably have found transpired at this meeting. To earn his commission a real estate broker must produce a purchaser who is ready, able and willing to buy the property upon terms prescribed or accepted by the owner. This rule does not require that the parties enter into an enforceable agreement but only that the offer of one party fairly meets the terms of the other. Finch v. Donella, 136 Conn. 621, 626, 73 A.2d 336; Wright v. Reid, 111 Conn. 141, 145, 149 A. 239; Provost v. McCarthy, 136 Conn. 447, 449, 72 A.2d 231; note, 12 A.L.R.2d 1410. Clearly, the jury could have found that Dr. Kingsbury was ready, able and willing to purchase. To sustain a verdict for the plaintiffs, however, there must be evidence that the offer of Dr. Kingsbury fairly met the terms prescribed by the defendant.
If the evidence upon this point is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the jury could reasonably have found the following: At the final meeting the question arose whether the $50,000 offer was for the house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. Turlick
...Martino v. Palladino, 143 Conn. 547, 548, 123 A.2d 872; Thomas F. Rogers, Inc. v. Hochberg, 143 Conn. 22, 118 A.2d 910; Dyas v. Akston, 137 Conn. 311, 77 A.2d 79; Roche v. Curtin, 131 Conn. 66, 69, 37 A.2d 805; Wright v. Reid, 111 Conn. 141, 146, 149 A. 239; Notkins v. Pashalinski, 83 Conn.......
-
Revere Real Estate, Inc. v. Cerato
...164 Conn. 75, 80, 316 A.2d 759 (1972); Busker v. United Illuminating Co., 156 Conn. 456, 465, 242 A.2d 708 (1968); Dyas v. Akston, 137 Conn. 311, 313, 77 A.2d 79 (1950). In the alternative, the broker may be entitled to recover if it has brought the buyer and the seller to an enforceable ag......
-
Vincent Metro, LLC v. Ginsberg
...own terms, is entitled to its commission even though no contract for the sale of the property has ever been executed. Dyas v. Akston, 137 Conn. 311, 313, 77 A.2d 79 (1950); Finch v. Donella, 136 Conn. 621, 626, 73 A.2d 336 (1950); Wright v. Reid, 111 Conn. 141, 145, 149 A. 239 (1930).” Stor......
-
Marcus v. Portal
...parties enter into an enforceable agreement but only that the offer of one party fairly meets the terms of the other.' Dyas v. Akston, 137 Conn. 311, 313, 77 A.2d 79, 80. In his brief and upon oral argument before us, the defendant has argued the case upon the basis of the ability of the bu......