McKallagat v. La Cognata
| Decision Date | 31 January 1957 |
| Citation | 140 N.E.2d 185,335 Mass. 376 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Daniel L. McKALLAGAT v. Giovanni LA COGNATA. |
Maurice Rappaport, Lawrence, for plaintiff.
Joseph C. Campione, Lawrence (John F. McCormick, Lawrence, with him), for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and CUTTER, JJ.
This is an action of contract brought in a District Court in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a commission for procuring a customer for the defendant's interest in certain real and personal property in Lawrence. The judge found for the plaintiff and upon a report to it, claimed by the defendant, the Appellate Division sustained the findings and rulings of the judge and dismissed the report. There was no error.
There was evidence as follows: On or about June 9, 1955, the plaintiff, a real estate broker, called upon the defendant to discuss the sale of a parcel of land with the building thereon numbered 102-116 Essex Street, Lawrence, and a restaurant in the building conducted by Capri Cafe, Inc., a corporation. It is not entirely clear from the record whether the defendant or the corporation owned the land and building but the defendant was the president, treasurer, and owner of all the stock in the corporation.
After some discussion and a visit to one Freedman the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff a commission of $1,000 if he procured a customer who would pay $50,000 for the properties. Freedman told the defendant that he would buy at that price. The next morning they met at the office of the lawyer for Freedman. There were present, besides the principals, Freedman's lawyer and accountant, and the defendant's lawyer. At this meeting all of the terms and conditions of the sale were agreed upon, including the payment of an additional $250 by Freedman for the unexpired term of the liquor license.
Later that day the plaintiff gave the defendant a letter signed by Freedman which reads as follows: The defendant then signed this letter individually and as president of the corporation, accepting the terms set forth therein. A day or two later the defendant notified Freedman that 'the deal was off' and he told the plaintiff that the restaurant was no longer for sale.
The judge expressly found that the defendant employed the plaintiff to procure a customer for the properties above referred to for the sum of $50,250 and promised that upon the production of a customer for that price who was ready, able, and willing to buy, he would pay the plaintiff a commission of $1,000. He further found that the plaintiff did procure Freedman who was ready, able, and willing to buy at that price but that the sale was never consummated between the defendant and Freedman. He further found that the plaintiff had performed all the terms of his employment.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaynor v. Laverdure
...311; Chapin v. Ruby, 321 Mass. 512, 515, 74 N.E.2d 12; Drake v. Sweet, 325 Mass. 542, 544--545, 91 N.E.2d 346; McKallagat v. LaCognata, 335 Mass. 376, 378, 140 N.E.2d 185; MacDonald v. Mihalopoulos, 337 Mass. 260, 262, 149 N.E.2d 138; Spence v. Lawrence, 337 Mass. 355, 358, 149 N.E.2d 379; ......
-
Lucier v. Young
...Lieberman v. Cohn, 288 Mass. 327, 330, 193 N.E. 6. That the defendant was not the sole owner was immaterial. McKallagat v. La Cognata, 335 Mass. 376, 140 N.E.2d 185. Doten v. Chase, 237 Mass. 218, 219-221, 129 N.E. 363, though similar, is distinguishable on its facts. There a purchase and s......
-
Snowden v. Cheltenham
...procure a customer ready, able, and willing to purchase the defendant's property upon terms satisfactory to her (see McKallagat v. La Cognata, 335 Mass. 376, 140 N.E.2d 185; Richards v. Gilbert, Mass., 146 N.E.2d 921); and that after reading the full and complete agreements sent to her for ......
-
Richards v. Gilbert
...292, 168 N.E. 439; Stone v. Melbourne, 326 Mass. 372, 94 N.E.2d 783; Menton v. Melvin, 330 Mass. 355, 113 N.E.2d 447; McKallagat v. LaCognata, 335 Mass. 376, 140 N.E.2d 185. The parties affirmed the agreement, recognized the sellers' rights under it, and the buyer's forfeiture of his deposi......