Murray v. Towers
| Decision Date | 15 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 13407.,13407. |
| Citation | 99 US App. DC 293,239 F.2d 914 |
| Parties | Charles MURRAY, Appellant, v. Frederic N. TOWERS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. G. A. Chadwick, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before BAZELON, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant brought suit in the District Court, seeking (a) to recover compensation for procuring a purchaser ready, willing and able to acquire the business of appellees; and (b) to recover for breach of a contract allegedly giving appellant the exclusive right to sell the business. Judgment having been entered for the appellees, this appeal followed.
The appellees authorized Towers to engage the appellant to sell a jewelry business owned by a corporation in which the appellees were the owners of all outstanding shares. Appellant produced a prospective customer, Winston, who made an offer which Towers deemed totally inadequate, and which he promptly rejected. Winston thereupon in July submitted a counter-proposal, not that he buy out the business, but that he consign a large volume of his own jewelry to be sold on his terms and under his supervision in the corporation's store. The consigned merchandise and the corporation's inventory, at prices fixed by Winston, would be moved through an intensive sales program to be executed during the months of October, November and December of 1953. Details as to the sale of the corporation's furniture and fixtures, extinguishment of certain stockholders' liability as endorsers of an outstanding corporation note, the transfer of its lease, the disposition of unsold merchandise and other items were left incomplete and undetermined, subject to possible agreement concerning all phases of the proposed transaction to be settled in September upon Winston's return from Europe. Thus, instead of negotiating a sale of appellees' business, appellant produced a customer who proposed a transaction which involved appellees' business more deeply than ever, under the control of Winston, with no commitment that any particular yield would result and with several important aspects of the ultimate joint venture, unresolved, uncertain, and indeed lacking a basis for an ascertainable determination of the corporation's interests in the business.
In the meantime, appellees themselves consummated in August a firm sale to a cash buyer, Gordon. Appellant made no claim that his efforts contributed to this sale to the ultimate purchaser, Gordon, or that the appellees conducted negotiations with Gordon by reason of information supplied by the appellant.
The trial judge directed a verdict for the appellees on the ground that the appellant had failed to show that there had been a meeting of the minds between Towers and Winston as to the essential elements of such a contract as would entitle appellant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riss & Company v. Association of American Railroads
...case to go to the jury (Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 1933, 288 U.S. 333, 344, 53 S.Ct. 391, 77 L.Ed. 819; Murray v. Towers, 1956, 99 U.S. App.D.C. 293, 239 F.2d 914). Substantial evidence must be present (Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Postom, 1949, 85 U.S. App.D.C. 207, 177 F.2d 53)......
-
Tavoulareas v. Washington Post Co.
...may not stand. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U.S. 333, 343, 53 S.Ct. 391, 394, 77 L.Ed.2d 819 (1933); Murray v. Towers, 239 F.2d 914, 915 (D.C. Cir.1956); Riss & Co. v. Association of American Railroads, 187 F.Supp. 306, 312 Technically, a motion for judgment n.o.v. is merely th......
-
Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co.
...to reach a verdict for the plaintiff. See Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 94, 50 S.Ct. 231, 233, 74 L.Ed. 720 (1930); Murray v. Towers, 239 F.2d 914, 915 (D.C.Cir.1956). The Patent The First Amendment protects the right to petition government agencies without fear of retribution. The Noerr-......
-
Cowal v. Hopkins, 4020.
...under the terms of their agreement, any right to make a sale without liability to pay the broker a commission. Murray v. Towers, 99 U.S.App. D.C. 293, 239 F.2d 914 (1956). A mere scintilla of evidence on this point is not enough. In our judgment the evidence in the present case does not sup......