Wine v. Lovett
| Decision Date | 26 June 1953 |
| Parties | WINE v. LOVETT. Ex. 9351. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
George C. Berk, Providence, for plaintiff.
Arthur N. Votolato and Leo T. Connors, Providence, for defendant.
This is an action in assumpsit for a broker's commission. The trial in the superior court resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $750, and thereafter the defendant's motion for a new trial was heard and denied. The case is before us on defendant's exceptions to certain rulings on evidence and to the denial of the motion for a new trial.
The controlling issue in this case is one of fact and not of law. Both parties agree that a broker for the sale of real estate is not entitled to a commission unless he procures a customer ready, able and willing to buy on terms satisfactory to the seller. In other words, the broker must be the procuring cause of the sale. Cavanaugh v. Conway, 36 R.I. 571, 90 A. 1080; Douglas v. Matzner, 51 R.I. 1, 149 A. 861.
A brief outline of the conflicting evidence will serve our purpose. The plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that while he was painting a house on Sackett street in the city of Providence for defendant, who was a dealer in real estate, the latter agreed to pay him a 5 per cent commission if he found a buyer who would pay $15,000 for the house; that acting in accordance with the terms of such agreement plaintiff obtained two prospective buyers for the property, one of whom was Bernice Lundy, and the other Sophie Cooperberg, wife of David Cooperberg, to whom it was ultimately sold; that plaintiff submitted the names of the prospective buyers to defendant, who refused to sell to either of them; and that shortly thereafter defendant conveyed the property to Morris Bochner, an intimate friend of the Cooperbergs. Within a few months thereafter Bochner transferred the premises by quitclaim deed to Sophie Cooperberg. Inferences that reasonably could be drawn from certain exhibits and from the testimony of other witnesses were adverse to defendant and tended to support plaintiff's basic contention that the alleged sale to Bochner was merely a subterfuge by defendant to avoid payment of a commission in accordance with his agreement.
The defendant, whose case rests almost entirely on his own testimony, categorically denied every material statement of plaintiff. The nearest he came to connecting himself with the transaction in question was when he testified that plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGovern v. Lord
...in doing so he was clearly wrong. Floyd v. Turgeon, 68 R.I. 218, 27 A.2d 330; Gregory v. Eugene, 75 R.I. 330, 66 A.2d 371; Wine v. Lovett, 80 R.I. 425, 97 A.2d 591. The exceptions to the denials of the motion for a new trial are All of the plaintiff's exceptions are overruled, and the case ......
-
Judge v. Roy
...49 R.I. 200, 142 A. 142; Greene v. Mitchell, R.I., 102 A. 516; G. L. & H. J. Gross v. Tillinghast, 35 R.I. 298, 86 A. 721; Wine v. Lovett, 80 R.I. 425, 97 A.2d 591. The defendant, while not conceding that plaintiffs are entitled to a commission, insists that claim has been made against the ......
-
Hayward v. Girard, 9575
...which is fully approved by the trial justice is entitled to great weight and should not be set aside unless clearly wrong. Wine v. Lovett, 80 R.I. 425, 97 A.2d 591; Petrarca v. McLaughlin, 75 R.I. 1, 62 A.2d 877. We have therefore carefully examined the transcript and the exhibits filed her......
-
Gartner v. Higgins
...purchaser who is ready, able and willing to purchase the property at the price and on the terms set by the seller. Wine v. Lovett, 80 R.I. 425, 97 A.2d 591; Avedisian v. Gasparian, 86 R.I. 423, 135 A.2d 837. Under such agreements the broker undertakes to produce a prospective purchaser who ......