Madden v. Hurley-Driscoll Bldg. Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1931 |
| Citation | 176 N.E. 811,276 Mass. 217 |
| Parties | MADDEN v. HURLEY-DRISCOLL BLDG. CORPORATION. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Raoul H. Beaudreau, Judge.
Action by Luke J. Madden against the Hurley-Driscoll Building Corporation. After a verdict for plaintiff, an order was made directing entry of verdict for defendant under leave reserved, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
W. A. Murray, of Boston, for plaintiff.
H. R. Donaghue, of Boston, for defendant.
This case is before us upon exception claimed by the plaintiff to an order directing entry of verdict for the defendant made under leave reserved pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 120, after a verdict for the plaintiff. It must be decided upon a narrow ground which does not go to the merits.
The defendant contends, rightly, that the action was brought prematurely. The writ bore date September 25, 1929. Service was made on September 27. The writ was entered on November 4, 1929; and, on that day, the plaintiff filed his declaration alleging that the defendant owed him a broker's commission as the efficient cause of a sale of real estate. Uncontradicted evidence showed that the agreement for sale to the alleged customer of the plaintiff did not become binding until some time in October or November of 1929, and that the deed did not pass until January 13, 1930. The case is controlled by the recent decision in Goldstein v. Ziman, 259 Mass. 430, 156 N. E. 673, which held that, as a broker's commission for being the efficient cause of a sale is not due until the conveyance or a binding agreement of purchase and sale has been made, an action instituted before that time is premature.
We need not consider whether there was sufficient evidence to take the case to a jury upon the merits.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corleto v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
... ... 314 Mass. 677; Church v. Lawyers Mortgage Investment ... Corp. of Boston, 315 Mass. 1) or the effecting of an ... actual transfer of ... prospective purchasers had agreed on terms. Madden v ... Hurley-Driscolt Building ... [320 Mass. 617] ... ...
-
Corleto v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...view, no commission would be earned until Prudential and the prospective purchasers had agreed on terms. Madden v. Hurley-Driscoll Building Co., 276 Mass. 217, 176 N.E. 811.Cramer v. Wood, 302 Mass. 161, 164, 19 N.E.2d 13.Shapiro v. Segal, 316 Mass. 556, 55 N.E.2d 782.Manning v. Springfield......