Gleason v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 19 October 1894 |
| Citation | 38 N.E. 497,162 Mass. 245 |
| Parties | GLEASON v. NELSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Samuel T. Field, for plaintiff.
Frederick L. Greene, for defendant.
The general rule of law applicable to a case like this is that where there has been no direct communication between the broker and the purchaser, it must be shown affirmatively that the latter was induced to enter into the negotiations which resulted in the purchase through the means employed by the broker for that purpose. If the broker employed other persons to aid him, whether under pay or not, or if he put up maps signs, notices, or otherwise advertised the property, by means of which a person was induced to open negotiations with the owner which resulted in his buying the property, the sale may be said to have been effected through the broker's instrumentality. But it must be made to appear that what the broker did was the immediate and efficient cause of such negotiations. If the broker merely talked about the property with different persons, and one of them, of his own accord, and not acting in behalf of the broker, mentioned to another that the property was for sale, and such last-mentioned person thereupon looked into the matter, and finally became the purchaser, the agency of the broker in inducing the sale was not sufficiently direct to entitle him to a commission. Ward v. Fletcher, 124 Mass. 224; Loud v. Hall, 106 Mass. 404; Bornstein v. Lans, 104 Mass. 214; Tombs v. Alexander, 101 Mass. 255; Sussdorff v. Schmidt, 55 N.Y. 319; Wylie v. Bank, 61 N.Y. 415; Earp v. Cummins, 54 Pa.St. 394; Carter v. Webster, 79 Ill. 435. The defendant relies on Lincoln v. McClatchie, 36 Conn. 136, as holding a rule rather more favorable to the broker. In that case the broker advertised the property. A. saw the advertisement, conferred with the broker, and went and told his friend B., in whose behalf he felt an interest, and B. bought the property. It was held that the broker was the procuring cause of the sale, and so was entitled to his commission.
The defendant's request for instructions was too broad. The purchasers may have obtained their knowledge that the plaintiff's business was for sale from a person with whom the defendant had negotiated for its sale, and yet that person might not have been acting as agent for the defendant or in his behalf. The instructions given to the jury were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonin v. Chestnut Hill Towers Realty Co.
...the question: who made the deal, or, in the language of the law, who was the efficient cause of the sale? See, e.g., Gleason v. Nelson, 162 Mass. 245, 38 N.E. 497 (1894); Carnes v. Finigan, 198 Mass. 128, 84 N.E. 324 (1908); Nichols v. Atherton, 250 Mass. 215, 145 N.E. 277 (1924); Palmer v.......
-
Farmer v. Holmes
... ... v. Harlow, 21 Wis. 303, 94 Am. Dec. 541; Brown v ... Shelton, Tex. Civ. App. , 23 S.W. 483; Warren v ... Cram, 71 Mo.App. 638; Gleason v. Nelson, 162 ... Mass. 245, 38 N.E. 497; Murray v. Currie, 7 Car. & P. 584, 2 Eng. Rul. Cas. 527; Wilkinson v. Martin, 8 ... Car. & P. 5, 2 ... ...
-
Holton v. Shepard
... ... N.E. 351, and no new forces enter into the transaction which ... break the causal relation between his efforts and the sale, ... Gleason v. Nelson, 162 Mass. 245, 250, 38 N.E ... 497,Delaney v. Doyle, 267 Mass. 171, 176, 177, 166 ... N.E. 623,Glendon v. Pyne, 275 Mass. 528, 530, 176 ... ...
-
Griffin v. Rosenblum
... ... contract or connection with the sale whatever. Earp v ... Cummins, 54 Pa. 394; Gleason v. Nelson, 162 ... Mass. 245; Hollyday v. Southern Agency, 100 Md. 294; ... Goff v. Hurst, 122 S.W. 148; Karr v ... Brooks, 129 S.W. 160; Bidwell ... ...