Thomas F. Rogers, Inc. v. Hochberg
| Decision Date | 29 November 1955 |
| Citation | 143 Conn. 22,118 A.2d 910 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMAS F. ROGERS, Inc. v. Sarah HOCHBERG. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
David R. Lessler, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).
Frank J. Hennessy, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE, and DALY, JJ.
In this action for a real estate broker's commission, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed. The following facts were found by the court: Judson and Claire Lang, husband and wife, owned a dwelling house on Bretton Street in Bridgeport. They were indebted to the defendant, who is the mother of Claire, in a substantial amount and wanted to make repayment. They conveyed the property to her, and all agreed to call in a broker to sell it so that the defendant could be paid and any balance remaining could be divided between the Langs. The plaintiff, a real estate broker, was called, and all three conferred with him at the premises to be sold. It was agreed that the plaintiff should be employed to sell the house for $17,000, cash, and that he would receive a commission of $500 for his services. The defendant told the plaintiff that she owned the property.
On December 3, 1951, the plaintiff told the defendant that he had, as customers, the Camarros, who, he said, were ready, able and willing to pay $17,000 cash for the property. He took a deposit of $300 from them and had them execute an agreement providing for the sale of the property for $17,000 in cash, the balance above the deposit to be paid on January 3, 1952, when title was to be transferred. The defendant instructed the plaintiff to complete the mortgage financing and to arrange the closing for that date, which he did by securing the approval of an $8000 bank mortgage, by causing the title to be searched and by arranging the closing. He notified the defendant several times that the contract was ready for her signature, but on January 7, 1952, she finally refused to complete the transaction. The Camarros were 'ready, willing and able' to purchase the defendant's property upon her terms.
The defendant has assigned an error in the finding which is decisive of this appeal. She claims that there is no evidence to support the finding that the Camarros were 'ready, willing and able' to purchase the property.
A broker earns his commission in a real estate transaction when he procures a customer who is ready, willing and able to purchase upon terms prescribed or accepted by the seller. Pentin v. Gonsowski, 138 Conn. 43, 48, 82 A.2d 157; Dyas v. Akston, 137 Conn. 311, 313, 77 A.2d 79; Restatement, 2 Agency § 445. The complaint alleges compliance with these requirements and the plaintiff has the burden of proving it. There is ample support for a finding that the Camarros were 'ready and willing' to buy the defendant's property, so far as these words import their approval of the prescribed terms of sale. They had signified this approval by signing a contract document which the defendant refused to sign. However, this circumstance is not proof of their financial ability to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopinto v. Haines
...General Statutes § 52-265; Jennings v. Reale Construction Co., 175 Conn. 16, 24, 392 A.2d 962 (1978); Thomas F. Rogers, Inc. v. Hochberg, 143 Conn. 22, 25, 118 A.2d 910 (1955). There is error in part, the judgment on the first count of the counterclaim for the defendant is set aside and a n......
-
Walsh v. Turlick
...and conditions prescribed or agreed to by the seller. Martino v. Palladino, 143 Conn. 547, 548, 123 A.2d 872; Thomas F. Rogers, Inc. v. Hochberg, 143 Conn. 22, 118 A.2d 910; Dyas v. Akston, 137 Conn. 311, 77 A.2d 79; Roche v. Curtin, 131 Conn. 66, 69, 37 A.2d 805; Wright v. Reid, 111 Conn. ......
-
De Carufel v. Colonial Trust Co.
... ... Scorpion v. American-Republican, Inc., 131 Conn. 42, 48, 37 A.2d 802; Purdy v. Watts, 88 Conn. 214, 217, 90 A ... ...
-
Kocian v. DeVito
...in a finding destroy the essential basis of the trial court's decision, a new trial is properly ordered.' Thomas F. Rogers, Inc. v. Hochberg, 143 Conn. 22, 25, 118 A.2d 910, 911; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 349. We find here that the errors were essentially made in the application of the rule......