McCarthy v. Reid
| Decision Date | 25 January 1921 |
| Citation | 237 Mass. 371,129 N.E. 675 |
| Parties | McCARTHY v. REID et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division; Wilfred Bolster, Judge.
Action by Edmund S. McCarthy against David T. Reid and others, resulting in ruling that plaintiff could not recover, the case being reported to the Appellate Division of the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, which vacated the finding for defendants, and ordered judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Order of judgment for plaintiff reversed, and judgment ordered for defendants.John F. Sullivan and Wilfrid J. Gaffney, both of Boston, for appellants.
Harry E. Perkins, of Boston, for appellee.
This is an action to recover a broker's commission upon an exchange of real estate. The trial judge made the following findings:
On these findings the court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
It is settled that when a broker has procured a customer who is able, ready and willing to buy, sell, or exchange land on terms stated by the broker's principal, the broker is entitled to his commission although no contract was actually made because the principal repudiated his offer afterwards (Fitzpatrick v. Gilson, 176 Mass. 477, 57 N. E. 1000), and that where a broker is employed to buy or exchange land for other land, and the customer is unable or unwilling to pay for the land or to make the exchange, the broker is entitled to his commission if the principal made a valid and binding agreement for such sale or exchange with the customer procured by the broker; in such a case the principal is held to have accepted the customer as able, ready and willing to buy and pay for the land or to make the exchange as agreed by the parties (Burnham v. Upton, 174 Mass. 408, 54 N. E. 873;Roche v. Smith, 176 Mass. 595, 58 N. E. 152,51 L. R. A. 510, 79 Am. St. Rep. 345). In the case last cited it was held that where a broker is employed to find a customer to effect an exchange of land with the principal and the latter makes a valid agreement with such customer, that the broker is entitled to his commission, provided he acted in good faith in the transaction, even if the customer is unable to convey a clear title and the land is not conveyed.
The cases above referred to are not decisive of the question we have to decide. The plaintiff procured a customer who induced the defendants by false...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatten Realty Co. v. Baylies, 1618
...secured by the Hatten Realty Company, the situation of the parties was the same as if the contract had never been made. McCarthy v. Reid, 237 Mass. 371, 129 N.E. 675, 12 L. R. 1000. The original note being void, the renewal also is void. 13 C. J. Page 314; Beland v. Annheuser-Busch, 157 Mo.......
-
Gaynor v. Laverdure
...257; Sullivan v. Tufts, 203 Mass. 155, 157--158, 89 N.E. 239; Ebert v. Haskell, 217 Mass. 209, 211, 104 N.E. 556; McCarthy v. Reid, 237 Mass. 371, 372--373, 129 N.E. 675; Spritz v. Brockton Sav. Bank, 305 Mass. 170, 171--172, 25 N.E.2d 155; Kaufman v. Kaitz, 325 Mass. 149, 89 N.E.2d It may ......
-
Rudnick v. Rudnick
...in the evidence. These representations were material (Mignault v. Goldman, 234 Mass. 205, 125 N. E. 189;McCarthy v. Reid, 237 Mass. 371, 372, 129 N. E. 675, 12 A. L. R. 1000;Rykiel v. Sklaver, 259 Mass. 608, 156 N. E. 842), even though the foreclosure of a mortgage having priority over the ......
-
Goldman v. Robinson, 85-1328
...undoing a wrongful transfer of property is the very antithesis of "consummating a deal". The case is similar to McCarthy v. Reid, 237 Mass. 371, 129 N.E. 675 (1921), in which, though a broker in good faith produced a customer who agreed to exchange land with his principal, the latter refuse......