Schlegal v. Allerton

• Decision Date: 01 December 1894
• Citation: 65 Conn. 260,32 A. 363
• Parties: SCHLEGAL v. ALLERTON.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

32 A. 363

65 Conn. 260

SCHLEGAL

v. ALLERTON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 1, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Waterbury county; Bradstreet, Judge.

Action by William J. Schlegal against Alida L. Allerton for real-estate commissions. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John O'Neill, for appellant.

Henry C. Baldwin, for appellee.

PENN, J. in November, 1891, the defendant placed certain real estate which she owned and was desirous of selling in the hands of the plaintiff, who was a real-estate dealer and agent, requesting him to sell the same, and fixed the price at $16,000. Some weeks after, the defendant called upon the plaintiff, and asked him what commission he would charge for selling the property, and he informed her that the customary commission, and what he would charge, would be 2 per cent. but said that he did not think it possible to sell the property for the figure she named. He also then said he thought Mr. Whittemore, who. owned the property adjoining, was the man who ought to buy it. She replied they had already tried him, and were sure he would not buy it. The plaintiff thereupon, with full knowledge and consent of the defendant, advertised said property, and put his sign in a conspicuous place in front of the same, showing that he had it for sale. He saw Mr. Whittemore, and a Mr. Conran, and endeavored to procure offers from each. Conran made an offer of $10,000, which the plaintiff reported to the defendant. She insisted that a better price must be obtained. The plaintiff then informed Mr. Whittemore of the offer, who subsequently called upon the plaintiff at his office, when the plaintiff told him that no offer less than $12,000 could be considered, and that Mr. Conran wanted a chance to make another bid before the property was sold out. Immediately after this, Mr. Whittemore met George Allerton, the stepson of the defendant, and said, if he could have the deed that day, he would give $11,500 for the property. Thereupon Allerton and Whittemore went at once to the defendant, the deed was drawn, and the money paid directly to the defendant; but no notice of such sale was given to the plaintiff, whose sign was still upon the property, and known to be there by the defendant, who never ordered it down, and never notified the plaintiff that the property was to be taken out of his hands. Some days after this, the plaintiff first heard of the sale from Mr. Conran. The defendant, upon the foregoing facts, offered to pay the plaintiff the sum of $25, and refused to pay him anything further; claiming that he had not obtained from Mr. Whittemore, or from any one else, a contract which she had accepted, or one which the plaintiff was authorized to negotiate, and that he was not entitled to any commission as a broker. The court overruled the claim of the defendant, and gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover his commission,—2 per cent. of the selling price, namely, $230, the defendant duly excepting. The defendant's notice of appeal, and the appeal, are in the usual form, in accordance with Gen. St. §§ 1130-1133; but the final reason assigned in said appeal is as follows: "The defendant requested the court, in writing, to find the facts which she claimed had been proved, in separate paragraphs, each of which was numbered; and said request and proposed finding was filed with the clerk within two weeks after judgment was entered in said action. The court has not stated in writing, on the margin of each of said paragraphs of such request, whether he finds such paragraphs proven or not proven, as is required by law. The court erred and mistook the law in not stating in writing, on the margin of each of said paragraphs of such request, whether he found such paragraph proven or not proven." There is also printed in the record the defendant's draft of the proposed finding, and a statement of the questions of law arising thereon, which the defendant desires to have reviewed by the supreme court of errors, and respectfully requests that the same may be adopted as a statement of the facts proved and the questions of law raised on the trial of...