McMillin v. Beves
| Decision Date | 22 May 1906 |
| Docket Number | 114. |
| Parties | McMILLIN et al. v. BEVES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
A. J Rose, for plaintiffs in error.
Dallas Flannagan, for defendant.
Before WALLACE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
The action was brought to recover commissions alleged to have been earned by the plaintiff as a broker in procuring the sale of certain corporate bonds. The principal assignments of error are based upon the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendants.
The jury were authorized to find the following facts: Early in January, 1901, the defendants requested plaintiff to find a purchaser for $275,00 mortgage bonds of a traction company operating certain street railroads in Oshkosh, Wis., and to offer them at a specified price with a certain amount of the stock of the company as a bonus and promised the plaintiff a commission upon the sale of 2 1/2 per cent. Pursuant to that proposition the plaintiff entered into communications with one Donnell, of Boston, and at the suggestion of Donnell had several interviews with the defendants to obtain information relative to the value of the securities, and reported the results to Donnell. February 19th plaintiff brought Donnell to the office of the defendants in New York City, introduced him, and told them he had offered the bonds to Donnell on the terms which they had suggested, and the defendants promised him that his commission should be taken care of. At that interview, after having a private conference with Donnell the defendants told the plaintiff in substance that they had offered the bonds to Donnell at a somewhat reduced price naming the terms; and an understanding was reached between all the parties that Donnell would within a few weeks investigate the value of the securities and negotiate directly with the defendants, and that the plaintiff's further intervention would be unnecessary unless he should be called in by the defendants. Thereafter Donnell visited Oshkosh, had the railroad properties examined by an expert investigated the earnings and expenses and general financial condition of the company, had numerous interviews at Boston and at Chicago with Farley, an employe of the defendants in charge of their Boston office, and finally agreed definitely with Farley to purchase the bonds. Subsequently Donnell closed the transaction with the defendants, entering into a written agreement with them which modified somewhat his agreement with Farley, and which contained independent provisions contingent upon a reorganization of the traction company by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stiewel v. Lally
...U.S. 421; 36 Iowa 546; 57 Miss. 51; 34 S.W. 450. 3. There was no error, either in giving, refusing or modifying instructions. 55 S.E. 899; 147 F. 218; 97 S.W. 838; Id. 1131; 53 Ark. 49; 71 Conn. 599. 4. There was no improper evidence admitted to appellant's prejudice. 1 Gr. Ev. [16 Ed.] p. ......
-
Northern Immigration Association, a Corp. v. Alger
... ... 49, 13 S.W. 419; McConaughy v ... Mahannah, 28 Ill.App. 169; Somers v. Wescott, ... 66 N.J.L. 551, 49 A. 462; McMillen v. Beves, 77 C ... C. A. 444, 147 F. 218; Johnson v. Hayward, 74 Neb ... 157, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 112, 103 N.W. 1058, 107 N.W. 384, 12 ... Ann. Cas. 800; ... ...
-
Colonial Trust Co. v. Pacific Packing & Navigation Co.
...Savings Bank, 71 Conn. 599, 42 A. 667, 44 L.R.A. 321; Vreeland v. Vetterlein, 33 N.J.Law, 247; Keys v. Johnson, 68 Pa. 42; McMillin v. Beves, 77 C.C.A. 444, 147 F. 218; French v. McKay, 181 Mass. 485, 63 N.E. 1068. In last case cited, a broker had brought about an exchange of real estate; t......
-
Kerr v. Parris
...land covered by the lease and sell it direct to Mr. Harwell without being liable for commissions, cannot be sustained. In McMillin v. Beves, 147 F. 218, 77 C. C. A. 444, it held in the syllabus: "It is sufficient to entitle a broker to his commission on a sale of bonds that the sale was eff......