Siegel v. Brockton Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 29 December 1942
• Parties: SIEGEL v. BROCKTON SAV. BANK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

312 Mass. 614

45 N.E.2d 931

SIEGEL

v.BROCKTON SAV. BANK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Dec. 29, 1942.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; V. Brogna, Judge.

Action on contract by Nathan Siegel against the Brockton Savings Bank. A verdict was directed for the defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

M. Rosenthal, of Boston, for plaintiff.

M. J. Zieman, of Boston, for defendant.

COX, Justice.

This is an action of contract to recover a commission for allegedly procuring a customer ready, able and willing to buy real estate of the defendant. The trial judge, upon motion, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, subject to the plaintiff's exception. It is stipulated that if the case should have been submitted to the jury, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $3,400, with interest.

The plaintiff testified that he went to the defendant bank, where he was given the income and expenses of the real estate in question by one Hall, who could have been found to be the manager of the defendant's real estate department; that he was told what the ‘Board of Directors' wanted for the property, and that he told Hall that he would try to obtain a purchaser. He saw one Konigsberg and obtained from him three offers, none of which was considered. He saw Hall later and told him that the best offer he could get was $100,000, down payment of $4,000 in cash, and the bank would take back a mortgage of $96,000 at the rate of interest of two percent per annum with principal payments of one percent per year on the unpaid balance. The plaintiff further testified that Hall then said to him: ‘If you can get me some references. I will put it up to the Board’; that he gave the references and was told to return within a few days; that upon his return, Hall told him that the ‘Board’ had accepted his offer of $100,000. ‘Your customer's references check up fine, the Board is pleased with them.’ Hall also told him to ‘get it in writing from Mr. Konigsberg with a deposit check.’

The plaintiff saw Hall the next day, gave him a deposit check and a letter signed by Konigsberg, in which he stated that he was ready and willing to purchase ‘under the following terms and arrangements: Price $100,000., down payment $4,000., the balance of $96,000. to be taken back as a mortgage by your institution for a period of five years bearing interest at the rate of 2% per annum with 1% ammortization per year. Payments of interest, taxes and principal to be apportioned on a monthly basis. In the event of acceptance of the foregoing offer title to be taken in the name of my nominee. Enclosed find check in the amount of $300. to bind said offer.’ The plaintiff's name as broker appeared in one corner of this letter. He testified that, when this letter was delivered, Hall told him that he would have the agreements of sale drawn within a few days.

A few days after the receipt of this letter, a letter was written to Konigsberg in which it was stated that his offer, contained in his letter addressed to the defendant, had been referred to the ‘Board of Investment’ and had been rejected, and that the check that had accompanied the letter was returned. Konigsberg, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he ‘finally sent an offer of $4,000 with the selling price $100,000, the bank to take a mortgage back of $96,000, 2% interest and 1% on principal a year’; that he put a check in of $300; that previous to putting the check in, he had spoken to the plaintiff about the $100,000 and the $4,000, and that he, Mr. Konigsberg, was ready, willing, and able to buy the...