Pullen v. Baltzer
| Decision Date | 05 January 1923 |
| Citation | 243 Mass. 419,137 N.E. 926 |
| Parties | PULLEN v. BALTZER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Jabez Fox, Judge.
Action by Richard T. Pullen against William A. Baltzer for a broker's commission, and on account annexed for services rendered. Directed verdict for plaintiff on the account annexed, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.
R. S. Wilkins, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Stewart & Chase and Walter A. Buie, all of Boston, for defendant.
The first two counts in the declaration are for the recovery of a certain sum a commission for finding a purchaser of the capital stock of the L. L. Bates Company, all of which was owned by the defendant, Baltzer. The trial judge directed a verdict for Baltzer on these counts, and the correctness of that ruling is not now before us. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the third count, which is upon an account annexed for service rendered and work and labor performed. The main exception of the defendant is to the refusal of the judge to direct a verdict for him on this count.
There was evidence on which the jury could find these to be the facts: The plaintiff was president of the Remington & Sherman Company, manufacturers of bank vaults, safes, etc. In July, 1918, he was informed that the defendant would like to dispose of his business. A conference between them was arranged, and was held at Boston on August 27. Baltzer asked the plaintiff to take up the matter, gave him data as to the assets and liabilities of the L. L. Bates Company, suggested the Sargent & Greenleaf Company as a possible buyer, and said he wanted $15,000 for his stock. The plaintiff said he would ask $16,000 the excess to go to the Remington & Sherman Company. He then said:
‘Mr. Baltzer, as a personal matter, if I put my personality into this matter and push it through, it is worth a consideration.’
To this the defendant replied:
‘I will be glad to pay 5 per cent. on what I get, the $15,000.’
In the cross-examination of the plaintiff appear these questions and answers:
Subsequent to this interview, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant with reference to his negotiations with Sargent & Greenleaf, and in the letter he stated:
‘Should negotiations result favorably in closing the deal, I would naturally expect you to pay me a basis of say 5% on the figure you accept.’
The reasonable construction to be placed on the testimony most favorable to the plaintiff is that under the agreement between him and the defendant he was to be paid for his services only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. Kazajian
...92 N. E. 804; or the value of his time, labor and expense if no completed transaction is carried through by the owner, Pullen v. Baltzer, 243 Mass. 419, 137 N. E. 926. Of course the owner and broker at any moment in their negotiations may enter into a contract of employment if they so choos......
- Wood v. Fairbanks
-
Ball v. Williamson
...employed as a broker and had failed to meet the terms of her employment, there could be no recovery in quantum meruit. Pullen v. Baltzer, 243 Mass. 419, 421, 137 N.E. 926; Elliott v. Kazajian, 255 Mass. 459, 461-462, 152 N.E. Exceptions overruled. 1 We have been informed that the first coun......
-
Bemister v. Hedtler
...McCarthy v. Reid, 237 Mass. 371, 129 N. E. 675, 12 A. L. R. 1000;Marden v. Howard, 242 Mass. 350, 356, 136 N. E 385;Pullen v. Baltzer, 243 Mass. 419, 423, 137 N. E. 926. The order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report is reversed and judgment is to be entered for the defendants. O......