Holden v. Starks

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: KNOWLTON
• Citation: Holden v. Starks, 34 N. E. 1069, 159 Mass. 503 (Mass. 1893)
• Decision Date: 19 October 1893
• Parties: HOLDEN v. STARKS.

159 Mass. 503

34 N.E. 1069

HOLDEN

v.STARKS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Oct. 19, 1893.

Report from supreme judicial court, Hampden county; Justin Dewey, Judge.

Action by Daniel F. Holden against George H. Starks to recover $50 alleged by plaintiff to be due him under a contract with defendant relating to the sale of a house and lot owned by defendant. At the close of the evidence the court ordered a verdict for plaintiff, and, by consent of the parties, the case was reported to the supreme judicial court. Judgment on the verdict.S.S. Taft, for plaintiff.

C.L. Gardner, for defendant.

KNOWLTON, J.

By the terms of the report, if the verdict for the plaintiff was warranted by any evidence which was properly admitted, it is to stand; otherwise, it is to be set aside, and judgment entered for the defendant. It was proved, and not disputed, that the plaintiff made a contract of sale of the defendant's house and lot to one who for a long time afterwards was able, ready, and willing to take the property, and pay for it the price agreed, and who was prevented from doing so by the defendant's refusal to carry out the contract. A payment of part of the purchase money was made to the plaintiff, with the intention of thereby rendering the contract irrevocable. If the plaintiff was authorized to make the sale as an agent employed by the defendant, he is, under these circumstances, entitled to compensation, notwithstanding that the purchaser could not have been compelled to carry out his contract if he had chosen to set up the statute of frauds. It was the defendant's own fault that the sale was not consummated. Cook v. Fiske, 12 Gray, 491;Desmond v. Stebbins, 140 Mass. 339, 5 N.E.Rep. 150; Witherell v. Murphy, 147 Mass. 417, 18 N.E.Rep. 215; Loud v. Hall, 106 Mass. 404-407;McGavock v. Woodlief, 20 How. 221;Kock v. Emmerling, 22 How. 69;Duclos v. Cunningham, 102 N.Y. 678, 6 N.E.Rep. 790; Edwards v. Goldsmith, 16 Pa.St. 43; Prickett v. Badger, 1 C.B.(N.S.) 296.

It remains to inquire whether there was evidence from which the jury might find that the plaintiff made a sale as the agent of the defendant under an employment by him. The evidence on this point is indefinite and unsatisfactory, but there was uncontradicted testimony from the plaintiff that, two or three years before the sale, the defendant, being informed that he was a real-estate broker, told him to sell the property, if he could, at a price which was named, and that ...