Marshall v. Sturgess & Jockmus, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1962 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Archibald G. MARSHALL v. STURGESS AND JOCKMUS, INC. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Charles G. Albom, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Donald E. Stevens, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
Macgregor Kilpatrick, Branford, with whom, on the brief, was Stanley D. Josephson, Branford, for appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.
On and before August 1, 1958, Mrs. Doris C. Frank was a licensed real estate salesman employed by the plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker. Mrs. Frank had previously sold two houses in the defendant's housing development, Blackstone Acres, and had been paid commissions. The plaintiff had a general listing of the defendant's properties and was not an exclusive agent. Early in July, 1958, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert C. Neumann had, by themselves, seen and inspected an L-shaped ranch house in Blackstone Acres. On July 30, 1958, Herbert spoke to Mrs. Frank concerning the ownership of this house, then in the course of construction, and inquired whether it was for sale. On that date, Mrs. Frank showed Herbert all the models in Blackstone Acres, as well as other properties. On August 1 1958, she showed both the Neumanns the properties she had shown Herbert two days before. Mrs. Neumann liked the L-shaped ranch house and did not want any other. On August 6, accompanied by Mrs. Frank, the Neumanns went to the defendant's office and executed a contract to purchase that house from the defendant for $19,025. They paid a deposit of $1000. The contract, at the Neumanns' insistence, was conditioned on their obtaining a federal housing administration mortgage in order to minimize the amount of the down payment. Within a few days after the contract was executed, the Neumanns' application for the mortgage was frefused because their income was insufficient. At their request, the defendant, through the plaintiff, returned the $1000 deposit, and the Neumanns' copy of the executed contract was returned to the defendant, it being the understanding of both parties that the transaction had failed.
The decision of this case, wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover a broker's commission, turns on the effect of the return of the deposit and of the purchasers' copy of the contract. The Court of Common Pleas found that although the Neumanns were anxious to buy the house, they did not have the necessary funds or a method of financing which would enable them to effect the purchase; that neither the plaintiff nor Mrs. Frank made any effort to arrange or provide for a satisfactory method of financing; and that their participation in the negotiations ceased with the return of the deposit and of the purchasers' copy of the contract. These findings are challenged by the plaintiff, but they are supported by credible evidence.
Very shortly after the return of the deposit and of the copy of the contract, Mrs. Neumann consulted another agency, which suggested a second mortgage and that the Neumanns seek the help of Charles T. Sturgess, an officer of the defendant corporation. After Sturgess had made inquiry at a savings bank, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Busker v. United Illuminating Co.
...seller, under the rule of cases such as Benrus Watch Co. v. Rosengarten, 138 Conn. 393, 396, 85 A.2d 487, and Marshall v. Sturgess & Jockmus, Inc., 150 Conn. 59, 62, 185 A.2d 472. The complaint, in material part, alleges that the defendant, by its fraudulent conduct in connection with its p......
-
Cohen v. Casillo
...procures a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy on the terms stated or on terms satisfactory to the owner. Marshall v. Sturgess & Jockmus, Inc., 150 Conn. 59, 62, 185 A.2d 472; Richter v. Drenckhahn, 147 Conn. 496, 500, 163 A.2d 109.' Busker v. United Illuminating Co., 156 Conn. 456, 46......
-
Marcus v. Portal
...upon terms prescribed or accepted the seller.' Richter v. Drenckhahn, 147 Conn. 496, 500, 163 A.2d 109, 111; Marshall v. Sturgess & Jockmus, Inc., 150 Conn. 59, 62, 185 A.2d 472. 'This rule does not require that the parties enter into an enforceable agreement but only that the offer of one ......
-
Nicastro Associates, Inc. v. C.F. Wooding Co., 2139
...producing cause of the sale." Kane v. Brunneau, 141 Conn. 242, 246, 105 A.2d 187 (1954); see also Marshall v. Sturgess & Jockmus, Inc., 150 Conn. 59, 62, 185 A.2d 472 (1962); Richter v. Drenckhahn, 147 Conn. 496, 500, 163 A.2d 109 (1960). In the present context, this means that an employmen......