Pentino v. Gallo
| Decision Date | 27 January 1928 |
| Citation | 107 Conn. 242,140 A. 105 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | PENTINO v. GALLO ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Leonard J. Nickerson Judge.
Action by Michael Pentino against Joseph Gallo and others to recover for services as real estate agent. Verdict and judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed. Error, and new trial ordered.
Frank P. McEvoy, of Waterbury, for appellant.
Charles W. Bauby, of Waterbury, for appellees.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, BANKS, and FOSTER JJ.
The complaint contains two counts based upon the same transaction, the first for an agreed commission of 5 per cent. upon the value of the defendants' farm, amounting to $1,750, and the second for the reasonable value of the plaintiff's services, also placed at $1,750.
Upon the conclusion of the evidence, the plaintiff prepared five interrogatories and requested that they be submitted to the jury, but the court did not do so. These and the action of the court thereon are made a part of the finding by request of the plaintiff. Interrogatories may be resorted to to protect the party making them from the implications of a general verdict. When there are two or more causes of action before the jury in the same suit, either in separate counts or in one count, a general verdict indicates that the jury found all the issues for the prevailing party in each cause of action, and the interrogatories enable the party to determine whether this is so in fact. In such situations, we have held that it is the duty of the trial court upon request to submit such interrogatories as would accomplish this purpose. Other interrogatories are at the discretion of the trial court. Ford v. Dubiskie & Co., Inc., 105 Conn. 572, 136 A. 560; Callahan v. Jursek, 100 Conn. 490, 124 A. 31; Aaronson v. New Haven, 94 Conn. 690, 110 A. 872, 12 A.L.R. 328; Brown v. Wright, 100 Conn. 193, 123 A. 7. The interrogatories here in question are of the latter class, and the submission of them was within the discretion of the court. The assignments of error on this phase of the case cannot be sustained.
The defendants offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proven, that they owned a farm near Waterbury, while one Rosengarten owned a piece of property in that city; that the plaintiff was acting as agent for Rosengarten before any connection was made with the defendants; that thereafter and throughout the negotiations with the defendants he continued to act in that capacity; that the plaintiff first spoke to the defendants after he had seen them in conversation with one Torkomian about the exchange of their farm for other property, when the plaintiff said to them, " Don't have anything to do with Torkomian, I will show you some property that I have for sale and which I will trade for your farm" ; that plaintiff and Rosengarten came to the farm of the defendants to inspect it, and discussed with the defendants the terms of a possible exchange of the properties; that the defendants offered to make an even exchange of the equities of the two properties, but refused to pay Rosengarten anything, while Rosengarten wanted $5,000 and an auto truck which the defendants owned; that plaintiff then suggested to the defendants in the Italian language, which Rosengarten did not understand, that if defendants would meet him and Rosengarten at an attorney's office that evening, he (the plaintiff) would persuade Rosengarten to come to the defendants' terms and make an even exchange of the equities; that they went to the office and met the plaintiff and Rosengarten, and a written agreement was drawn up which they later discovered required them to pay Rosengarten $3,000 and turn in the truck as part of the exchange of the properties, whereupon they refused to have anything more to do with the matter.
The plaintiff offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proven, that throughout the transaction he was acting as agent for both Rosengarten and the defendants; that it was the practice of real estate agents in Waterbury to represent both parties in an exchange or sale of farm properties for city properties and receive a commission from each party; that an oral agreement was reached by Rosengarten and the defendants for an exchange of properties, and that its terms were the same as the writing thereafter prepared at the attorney's office, but that the defendants refused to carry out the agreement, though Rosengarten was ready, able, and willing to do so.
One of the chief contentions made by the plaintiff on this appeal is that an unwarranted influence and prejudice against the plaintiff and his claim was caused by the remarks of the court during the trial and in the charge. The plaintiff had testified that he was acting as agent for both parties in procuring their agreement for an exchange of properties, and he offered as a witness one Hutchinson, a real estate agent of Waterbury, who testified that it was the custom of real estate agents in that locality to act in such dual capacity. This witness was examined by the court, and the statements made on that examination are the basis of the first reason of appeal. The court denied the motion of the plaintiff that a transcript of what occurred be made a part of the finding. This refusal is the basis of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hosp.
...has a duty to grant a defendant's proper request for interrogatories when there are two or more causes of action. Pentino v. Gallo, 107 Conn. 242, 244, 140 A. 105 (1928); Hartford v. Anderson Fairoaks, Inc., Even in the face of this duty, however, our cases recognize that a trial court has ......
-
Myer v. PREFERRED CREDIT, INC.,
...from the contract, and when the transaction is seasonably challenged a presumption of its own invalidity arises."); Pentino v. Gallo (1928), 107 Conn. 242, 140 A. 105 (quoting Bell v. McConnell as a "sound and well-established" opinion); Twiss v. Herbst (1920), 95 Conn. 273, 276-277, 111 A.......
-
City of Hartford v. Anderson Fairoaks, Inc.
...it is the duty of the trial court, upon request, to submit such interrogatories as would accomplish this purpose. Pentino v. Gallo, 107 Conn. 242, 244, 140 A. 105 (1928). This duty arises from the "general verdict" rule. Gaulton v. Reno Paint & Wallpaper Co., 177 Conn. 121, 125, 412 A.2d 31......
-
Whipple v. Fardig
...v. H. W. Dubiskie & Co., 105 Conn. 572, 582, 136 A. 560; O'Neil v. Larkin-Carey Co., 106 Conn. 153, 155, 137 A. 721; Pentino v. Gallo, 107 Conn. 242, 244, 140 A. 105. trial court properly struck out the testimony of jurymen previously admitted as to the basis of their judgment. It is contra......