Metz v. Hvass Const. Co.
Decision Date | 15 October 1957 |
Citation | 144 Conn. 535,135 A.2d 363 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Harriet A. METZ v. The HVASS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Walter A. Hayes, Greenwich, for appellant (defendant).
John Keogh Jr., Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was William L. Tierney, Jr., Greenwich, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.
The plaintiff had a judgment to recover a real estate broker's commission and the defendant has appealed.
'A broker earns his commission in a real estate transaction when he procures a customer who is ready, willing and able to purchase upon terms prescribed or accepted by the seller.' Thomas F. Rogers, Inc., v. Hochberg, 143 Conn. 22, 24, 118 A.2d 910, 911. The issue upon the trial of the case at bar was whether the plaintiff had procured the customer who purchased a parcel of land from the defendant and contracted with the defendant for the erection of a house upon it. This was essentially an issue of fact, and the trier's conclusion must stand unless it is contrary to or unsupported by the subordinate facts, or is in conflict with logic and reason, or is found in violation of some rule of law. Kane v. Brunneau, 141 Conn. 242, 246, 105 A.2d 187.
The necessary facts may be stated in summary as follows: The plaintiff was a real estate broker in Greenwich. She lived in the same apartment house as the Gordons, whom she knew as neighbors. Mrs. Gordon told the plaintiff, whom she knew to be a real estate agent, what the expiration date of her lease was and that she was looking for a house. The defendant owned a real estate development called 'Perryridge Knolls.' The Gordons bought a lot in this development for $4,000 and entered into an agreement with the defendant for the construction of a $20,000 house. These findings are not challenged.
The court found further: Previous to the sale of the lot and the construction of the house, the plaintiff had talked with Baldwin Hvass, president of the defendant, who had invited her to bring prospective customers to the development. She had taken customers there and had met and talked with Hvass and his representative, Robert Nichol. On July 9, 1953, she brought Mrs. Gordon to the development, where they met Hvass and Nichol. The plaintiff told Hvass that she was an agent and had brought Mrs. Gordon as a prospective customer. Nichol on that occasion showed Mrs. Gordon lots and several houses under construction, displayed plans, quoted prices, and advised her that the defendant would erect a house to meet the Gordons' requirements. The defendant has excepted to these findings and has assigned error in the court's refusal to correct them.
The trier is the arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Ball v. Town of Branford, 142 Conn. 13, 15, 110 A.2d 459. The appendix filed with the plaintiff's brief contains evidence which supports the findings made. It is true that the defendant did not specifically employ the plaintiff, as, for example, by listing its property with her for sale, and that she had no part in the negotiations between the Gordons and the defendant subsequent to the date when she took Mrs. Gordon to the development. Nevertheless, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial