Meagher v. Reeney
| Decision Date | 05 April 1921 |
| Citation | 96 Conn. 116,113 A. 169 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | MEAGHER et al. v. REENEY. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Daniel A Markham, Judge.
Action by Mark C. Meagher and others against Pauline Reeney. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff.
The defendant employed the plaintiffs as real estate brokers to procure a purchaser for certain real property in the city of Hartford at a price of $19,500 and agreed to pay the plaintiffs a commission of 2 per cent. on the purchase price. The plaintiffs procured customers who entered into a written contract under seal with the defendant for the purchase of the property and paid down the sum of $200. Subsequently they refused to carry out their part of the contract, claiming that the defendant had misrepresented the amount of rentals received from the property and the question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to their commission notwithstanding such refusal.
James W. Knox, of Hartford, for appellants.
Joseph Barr, of Hartford, for appellee.
The trial court finds that the defendant did not understand the English language, that she could not write, and that she never fully understood a bond for a deed; but the case went to trial on a general denial of the allegations of the complaint, and these findings are entirely outside of the issues. The single question of law raised by the appeal is whether a real estate agent employed to procure a customer at a given price has earned his commission when he procures a customer with whom his client enters into a binding contract for the sale of the property, either on the terms originally fixed or upon others satisfactory to the vendor.
Upon principle it would seem that a broker has fully performed his task when he brings the parties to an enforceable agreement and in this case the agreement is one of which a court of equity might decree specific performance at the instance of either party. The case is practically controlled by Leete v. Norton, 43 Conn. 219, and in other jurisdictions the law is well settled. After the broker has produced a customer who professes to be ready, able, and willing to buy the property on the terms fixed, it is, as was said in Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83, 47 N.W. 452:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stagg v. Lawton.
...Home Banking & Realty Co. v. Baum, 85 Conn. 383, 387, 82 A. 970; Gardner v. Buechler, 95 Conn. 448, 450, 111 A. 589; Meagher v. Reeney, 96 Conn. 116, 117, 113 A. 169. In holding that an agreement between an owner and a broker for his services was not within the Statute of Frauds, we said: ‘......
-
Walsh v. Turlick
...buyer and the defendants. A broker has fully performed his task when he brings the parties to an enforceable agreement. Meagher v. Reeney, 96 Conn. 116, 113 A. 169; McHugh v. Bock, 134 Conn. 519, 58 A.2d 740; Restatement (Second), 2 Agency § 445, comment (d); note, 74 A.L.R.2d 437, 443, § 3......
-
Sonnichsen v. Streeter
...to purchase upon terms prescribed or accepted by the seller. Martino v. Palladino, 143 Conn. 547, 548, 123 A.2d 872; Meagher v. Reeney, 96 Conn. 116, 117, 113 A. 169; Dworski v. Lowe, 88 Conn. 555, 558, 92 A. 112. There can be no question that both defendants had performed and were entitled......
-
Wilson v. Sewell
...65 Conn. 260, 32 A. 363; Shelton v. Lundin, 45 Ind.App. 172, 90 N.E. 387; Minks v. Clark, 70 Colo. 323, 201 P. 45; Meagher v. Reeney, 96 Conn. 116, 113 A. 169; Rogers & Cole v. Cole ex ux., 99 Vt. 239, 131 A. 12; and Talbott v. Treacy, 213 Ky. 8, 280 S.W. 153. We take it as an admitted fact......