Notkins v. Pashalinsky

• Decision Date: 12 July 1910
• Citation: 76 A. 1104,83 Conn. 458
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: NOTKINS v. PASHALINSKY et ux.

76 A. 1104

83 Conn. 458

NOTKINS

v. PASHALINSKY et ux.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 12, 1910.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County.; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.

Action by Abraham L. Notkins against Michael Pashalinski and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Jacob Caplan, for appellants.

Ward Church and Clarence W. Bronson, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The plaintiff is a real estate dealer in the city of New Haven. On or about June 1, 1908, the defendants were the owners of a certain piece of real estate which they requested the plaintiff to sell. The plaintiff in pursuance of this request endeavored to interest different purchasers in the property, and procured different offers for the same, which offers were refused by the plaintiff. The selling price of the property was $35,000, to be payable as follows: $7,000 in cash, the assumption of a mortgage then upon the real estate, and the execution of a second mortgage for the balance of the purchase price. The plaintiff in pursuance of his employment induced one Joseph Schwartz to offer the defendants the sum of $34,000 for the property, which offer the defendants accepted. The terms of the sale were the same as those above set forth except that the said Schwartz was to pay, and the defendants agreed to accept, the sum of $6,000 in cash, instead of the sum of $7,000, making the purchase price $34,000 instead of $35,000 as first contemplated. After the defendants had accepted the offer of Schwartz and agreed to sell bun the property, and after they had suggested to Schwartz that they go to the defendants' lawyer to have the necessary papers of sale drawn up, to which Schwartz assented, the defendants refused to consummate the sale and to convey the property as they had agreed unless the plaintiff would consent to accept by way of commission for his services the sum of $100, which he refused to do. On the following day the defendants again agreed to convey the property to Schwartz upon the terms above described, if the plaintiff would agree to accept $300 for his services, which he declined. Schwartz was ready and willing to buy the property upon the terms prescribed by the defendants and was able to carry out the terms of his agreement. It therefore appears that the plaintiff at, the request of the defendants made a contract of sale of the defendants' real estate to one who was able, ready, and willing to take the property and pay for it at the price agreed, and who was prevented from doing so by the defendants' refusal to carry out the contract.

The broker must complete the sale; that is, he must find a purchaser aide, ready, and willing to complete the purchase on the terms agreed, before he is entitled to his com missions. Taylor v. Schotield, 191 Mass. 1, 77 N. E. 652; Tebo v. Mitchell, 5...