Jones v. Adler
| Decision Date | 14 June 1871 |
| Citation | 34 Md. 440 |
| Parties | BUCKLER JONES v. JOSEPH ADLER. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee a property agent or broker, to recover from the appellant commissions for services rendered in procuring a purchaser for a certain house in the city of Baltimore. The pleas were never indebted as alleged, and did not promise as alleged.
Exception: The plaintiff asked the following instruction:
If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant employed the plaintiff to procure a purchaser for the property spoken of by the witness, and the plaintiff did procure a purchaser for said property, and the said property was sold by the defendant to a purchaser, procured by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover such compensation as they may find usual and customary.
The defendant offered the following prayers:
1. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover commissions for the sale of the property, inasmuch as the proof in the case shows the title to the property was in Mrs. Priscilla A. Jones, and the same was sold by her to Dr. Erich.
2. That the jury shall find their verdict for the defendant, unless they shall believe from the evidence that the defendant employed and solicited the services of the plaintiff to sell said property for $14,000; and that the plaintiff sold the property at the price agreed on between him and the defendant.
3. That if the jury shall believe from the evidence, that the property at the corner of Broadway and Gough street, sold by Mrs. Priscilla A. Jones, and her husband, the defendant, to Dr. Erich was not sold by the plaintiff in this case as broker, at the request of the defendant for $14,000, to Dr Erich, under an agreement for commissions to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, then he is not entitled to recover in the present suit.
4. That if the jury believe from the evidence that the broker, Bucksbaum, was the person first to communicate to the defendant that Dr. Erich wished to buy the property in question, and that in consequence of such information, negotiations were opened between Dr. Erich and the defendant, which were finally consummated at the house of Mr. Myers, with Mrs. Priscilla A. Jones, and that she sold the property to Dr. Erich, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the present action.
The Court granted the plaintiff's prayer, and rejected the prayers of the defendant. To this ruling of the Court the defendant excepted, and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed.
The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., GRASON, MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.
John H. Ing, for the appellant.
Thales A. Linthicum, for the appellee.
This suit was brought by the appellee to recover broker's commissions from the appellant, for the sale of certain property situate in the city of Baltimore.
At the trial below, the appellee offered evidence tending to prove that he was employed by the appellant to sell the property in question, and that through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paulson v. Reeds
...370; Johnson v. Virginia-Carolina Lumber Co., 89 C. C. A. 632, 163 F. 249; Cook v. Forst, 116 Ala. 395; Van v. Pelot, 55 Fla. 357; Jones v. Adler, 34 Md. 440; Williams v. McGraw, 52 Mich. 480; Antisdel Canfield, 119 Mich. 229; Brown v. Adams (R. I.) 69 A. 601; Ball v. Dolan, 21 S.D. 619; La......
-
Northern Immigration Association, a Corp. v. Alger
...817; Stewart v. Mather, 32 Wis. 344; Lincoln v. McClatchie, 36 Conn. 136; Cook v. Fiske, 12 Gray, 491; Bell v. Kaiser, 50 Mo. 150; Jones v. Adler, 34 Md. 440; Scott Clark, 3 S.D. 486, 54 N.W. 538; Zeimer v. Antisell, 75 Cal. 509, 17 P. 642; Goldsmith v. Coxe, 80 S.C. 341, 61 S.E. 555; Wrigh......
-
Millan v. Porter
...Ex'rs v. Meade, 5 Cent. Law Jour. 409; Bell v. Kaiser, 50 Mo. 150; Tyler v. Parr, 52 Mo. 249; Timberman v. Craddock, 70 Mo. 638; Jones v. Adler, 34 Md. 440. The rule in like the one at bar is that a broker who discloses a purchaser, and such disclosure is the foundation upon which negotiati......
-
Winsor v. Lafayette County Bank
...the bargain, if the sale was effected through the exertions of the agent. Tyler v. Parr, 52 Mo. 249; Bell v. Kaiser, 50 Mo. 150; Jones v. Adler, 34 Md. 440; v. McClutchie, 36 Conn. 136; Timberman v. Craddock, 70 Mo. 638. III. The case was fairly submitted by the instructions to the jury upo......