Merwin v. Beardsley.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1947 |
| Citation | 134 Conn. 212,56 A.2d 517 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | MERWIN v. BEARDSLEY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Bordon, Judge.
Action by Harry Merwin against Viola G. Beardsley to recover real estate commission. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Error and case remanded with direction.
William F. Geenty and R. William Bohonnon, both of New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Lyman H. Steele, of New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff to recover a broker's commission for the sale of the defendant's real estate.
With such corrections of the finding as we find the defendant entitled to, the facts necessary for the determination of the issues are as follows: The plaintiff was a New Haven real estate broker, which fact the defendant knew. The defendant owned real estate in New Haven. Early in 1945, the Lombardis, former clients of the plaintiff, asked him to find a place for them to live. He was unable to find an apartment and showed them several properties which he thought they might be interested in purchasing. On April 30, 1945, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant and told her that he wished to show her house to prospective purchasers. He knew that her house had been listed with another broker in August, 1944, at $13,500. She replied that she had not decided to sell but that he might show the house to his customers without any obligation on her part. The same day he brought the Lombardis to her home and introduced them to her; they inspected the house and offered to buy it at $13,500. She said she would not sell at this price, that she was not ready to close a deal and that she wished to talk the matter over with friends, adding that she would inform the plaintiff of her decision. The plaintiff telephoned her next day and she told him the price was $17,000. He said he would list it at that figure and let her know if the Lombardis would pay it. He informed the Lombardis of the price. They refused to pay it, but said they would pay $15,000. The plaintiff so informed the defendant and, when she hesitated about accepting the offer, said that he might be able to add the commission of $750 to the Lombardis' offer, for which she thanked him. He then asked the Lombardis to make an offer of $15,750, but they refused. The plaintiff thereafter showed the Lombardis other properties for sale but continued to urge them to buy the defendant's house. They made a deposit on another house. A few days later the defendant telephoned them and invited them to her house to discuss the purchase of her property. They called on the defendant the following day, May 31, 1945, and entered into a written agreement for the purchase of the house at a price of $15,000. The agreement contained the following provision: ‘Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Lombardi relieve Mrs. Viola G. Beardsley of any brokerage commission on sale of house.’ The defendant conveyed the property to the Lombardis on June 26, 1945.
On June 28, 1945, the plaintiff, learning of the transfer, wrote Lombardi as follows:
‘Anxiously awaiting your reply as I am sure you will want to do the right thing, I remain * * *’
The plaintiff later secured legal advice and made demand on the defendant for a commission. No commission was paid him and he brought this action.
In addition to these facts, the trial court further found that at all times during the negotiations the defendant knew or should have known, as a reasonable person, that the plaintiff expected to receive from her payment of the usual commission (5 per cent of the sales price) if she sold the property to the Lombardis; that the plaintiff expected such payment; that the defendant did not inform him that she would not pay a commission if the Lombardis purchased the property; that she knew when she made the sale agreement that she was obligated to pay a commission to him; that the plaintiff initiated the negotiations between the defendant and the Lombardis and these were not broken off or abandoned before the sale, nor was the sale brought about by any intervening cause independent of the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff was the efficient and procuring cause of the sale; and the court finally concluded that there was an implied contract on the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Cox.
...he ought reasonably to know the condemnor expected payment. Collyer v. Collyer, 113 N.Y. 442, 447, 21 N.E. 114, and see Merwin v. Beardsley, 134 Conn. 212, 56 A.2d 517. Therefore, where the former owner continues in possession after his property has been taken by the state pursuant to the s......
-
Walsh v. Turlick
...circumstances indicating that he expects to be paid and the defendant avails himself of the benefits of such services. Merwin v. Beardsley, 134 Conn. 212, 216, 56 A.2d 517; Sullo v. Luysterborghs, 129 Conn. 172, 174-175, 26 A.2d 784; Cassidy v. Congdon, 121 Conn. 68, 183 A. 1; Canfield v. S......
-
Elmendorf v. Poprocki
...on an implied rather than an express contract. See Metz v. Hvass Construction Co., 144 Conn. 535, 537, 135 A.2d 363; Merwin v. Beardsley, 134 Conn. 212, 216, 56 A.2d 517. Absent, however, a clear legislative indication to the contrary, the Probate Court must approve the necessity and propri......
-
Chambers v. Shivers
...she expected payment from defendant is fatal to her claim of the existence of an implied contract with defendant. See Merwin v. Beardsley, 134 Conn. 212, 56 A.2d 517. Judgment reversed with directions to dismiss the SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and ENOCH, J., concur. ...