Gray v. Greenblatt

• Decision Date: 14 July 1931
• Citation: 113 Conn. 535,155 A. 707
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GRAY v. GREENBLATT et al.

155 A. 707

113 Conn. 535

GRAY v. GREENBLATT et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 14, 1931

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, District of Waterbury; Harry J Beardsley, Judge.

Action by John H. Gray against Louis Greenblatt and others to recover damages for breach of a contract to exchange real estate. The case was tried to the jury and verdict was for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Error and new trial ordered.

Patrick Healey and Milton Meyers, both of Waterbury, for appellant.

Michael V. Blansfield and Ralph E. Coppeto, both of Waterbury, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.

AVERY J.

The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement, October 17, 1929, under the terms of which the defendant agreed to sell and transfer to the plaintiff, by warranty deed, free from all incumbrances, his property situated in the town of Prospect, for the agreed price of $9,000; and the plaintiff agreed to sell and transfer to the defendant his property situated on Ponham street in Waterbury, for the agreed price of $16,000, the same to be free from all incumbrances, except a mortgage for $8,000 to the Savings Bank, a mortgage for $4,850 to one Zachin, and a mortgage for $150 to one Provost. The agreement further provided that the plaintiff should give the defendant a mortgage on the Prospect property " in an amount of what difference there is remaining between the purchase prices of said properties less all adjustments on same at the time of transfers" ; and a further provision of the agreement was that " all adjustments on both said properties shall be made as of the date of transfer of same, and the amount thereof shall be either added to or deducted from said amount of said mortgage which is to be given to the defendant by the plaintiff on said Prospect property."

The plaintiff, claiming that the defendant had breached the agreement by refusing to perform, brought suit to recover damages; and the case was tried to the jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,051.77. The defendant moved to set the verdict aside as against the evidence and excessive; and from a denial of this motion, appealed. Error was also assigned in certain rulings on evidence and in the instructions of the court.

In case of a breach of contract to convey land, the injured party recovers nominal damages; and, in addition thereto, he may be entitled to recover the expense to which he has been subjected in preparing to carry out the agreement. Over and above these items, to recover substantial damages, loss in the bargain must be shown, i. e., the difference between the price fixed in the contract and the fair market value of the land at the time the contract was to be executed, adding whatever has been paid towards the purchase money, if anything. Makusavich v. Gotta, 107 Conn. 207, 210 139 A. 780; Wells v. Abernethy, 5 Conn. 222, 227; Sterling v. Peet, 14 Conn. 245, 254; Joseloff v. Spirt, 97 Conn. 447, 451, 117 A. 523; 27 R.C.L. 618. According to the evidence, the plaintiff's property was worth $16,000, less mortgages and adjustments which the parties, in their briefs, concede amounted to $14,029.66, leaving a net equity to be given by the plaintiff in the exchange of $1,970.34. The evidence is that defendant's property was worth $9,000 in trade and $7,500 in cash, on which the plaintiff was to give back to the defendant a mortgage of $7,029.66. This leaves a net equity of $1,970.34 in defendant's property to be...