Washburn v. Bradley

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: BARKER, J.
• Citation: Washburn v. Bradley, 169 Mass. 86, 47 N.E. 512 (Mass. 1897)
• Decision Date: 29 June 1897
• Parties: WASHBURN v. BRADLEY.

169 Mass. 86

47 N.E. 512

WASHBURN v. BRADLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 29, 1897

COUNSEL

W.N. Buffum, for plaintiff.

Wiggin & Fernald, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

As the case was tried without a jury, the finding for the plaintiff if supported by any fair view of the evidence, and not shown to have been affected by any error in law, will stand. The defendant was lessee, at an annual rent of $7,300, of a building, which he sublet, and about four years of his term was unexpired. Wishing to be freed from his tenancy, he availed himself, upon terms which were in dispute, of the plaintiff's services as a broker. The plaintiff found a firm willing to become lessees of the building for 10 years at an annual rent of $6,000, and obtained from the firm the covenant set out in the declaration, and which was verbally accepted by the defendant, who arranged for his own release by the owner upon payment of $1,550. The owner assented to the terms proposed, prepared a lease accordingly, and gave it to the defendant to take to the proposed lessees. They did not execute it, asserting that the defendant had misinformed them as to the time when the subleases would terminate. Negotiations for the removal of this difficulty continued for some days between the defendant and the proposed lessees, when one of the subtenants took a 10-years lease of the building from the owner, at an annual rent of $6,000, and the defendant was released from his own tenancy upon his payment to the owner of the $1,550.

The evidence is not stated in full, nor is it said that all material evidence is given. It appears that the testimony of the plaintiff and that of the defendant was conflicting, both as to the terms of the plaintiff's employment and as to subsequent occurrences, and also that there was a conflict of testimony between the defendant and one of the proposed lessees as to what statements were made by the defendant as to the subleases before the making of the covenant. The evidence would justify a finding that if the plaintiff produced a suitable customer, willing and ready to become lessee, on terms satisfactory to the owner and to the defendant, it was the defendant's concern to procure the cancellation of his own lease, which must, of course, be extinguished before the new lease could be made, and also that the reason why the plaintiff's customers did not execute the new lease was that ...