Ripley v. Taft

• Decision Date: 16 October 1925
• Citation: 253 Mass. 490,149 N.E. 311
• Parties: RIPLEY v. TAFT.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

253 Mass. 490

149 N.E. 311

RIPLEY

v.TAFT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Oct. 16, 1925.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Winfred H. Whiting, Judge.

Action of contract by John C. Ripley against Carl Taft to recover commission for procuring customer for sale of defendant's farm and chattels. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.A. B. Cenedella, of Milford, for plaintiff.

C. W. Proctor and J. C. McDonald, both of Worcester, and C. W. Gould, of Milford, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

[1] This is an action to recover a broker's commission for procuring a customer for the sale of the defendant's farm and certain farming implements and stock. The plaintiff testified that at his first conversation with the defendant the latter stated that he would like to dispose of his farm; and that at a later conversation the defendant told him what stock and farming implements he had on the farm and that he would sell it and the personal property for $7,000; that thereafter it was advertised for sale by the plaintiff in several newspapers; that the plaintiff showed the farm to one Sowa in the presence of the defendant, who said his price was $7,000; that the defendant told Sowa about the personal property and said that everything there went with the farm except some hens that belonged to a tenant, and some automobiles which were not included. The plaintiff further testified that on this occasion he was asked by the defendant who was to pay the plaintiff's commission; that he told him it was customary for the seller to pay, and the defendant replied, ‘My purchase price is $7,000 and I expect you to get your commission above that purchase price;’ that the plaintiff then said, ‘If I receive a purchaser who is ready and willing to pay $7,500, $500 will be for me?’ The defendant answered, ‘I don't care what you make above $7,000, $7,000 is the purchase price for which I am willing.’ The witness then said, “If these people should not buy, if I bring another prospect here I understand you want a purchase price of $7,000 and commission, commission above that.' He says, ‘that is the way I want it left.” Sowa did not purchase the property. Subsequently the plaintiff showed it to one Demettrick, who agreed to buy the farm and personal property for $7,500; and an agreement in writing, containing the terms of sale, was signed by the plaintiff as agent, and by Demettrick. The plaintiff testified that after this agreement had been made, he told the defendant in substance that he had procured a customer for the farm for $7,500; that the defendant replied he was glad of it, that the customer could have it, and that if the plaintiff got a customer who would pay $7,500 the plaintiff was to receive $500. The plaintiff further testified that at this interview he also told the defendant that the customer was to give a mortgage for $5,000 on the property, and that if the defendant did not want to take it, that he (the plaintiff) would place the mortgage with some one else; that the defendant said that he would let the plaintiff know about the mortgage later and that everything was satisfactory. When Demettrick agreed to purchase the property, he gave to the plaintiff a note for $100 as a deposit, which he afterwards paid.

[2] Upon the foregoing testimony and all the other evidence, it could not properly have been ruled, as requested by the defendant, that a verdict be directed in his favor. There was evidence that a customer was procured by the plaintiff who was ready, willing and able to purchase the property at the price and upon the terms agreed upon by the defendant; and that the latter repudiated his contract with the plaintiff. It could not have been ruled, as the defendant contends, that on the evidence a commission was not to be paid unless there was a completed sale. If the jury believed the evidence offered by the plaintiff, a finding was warranted that he was employed to procure a customer who was able, willing and ready to purchase the property on the...