Wood v. Holah

• Decision Date: 30 July 1906
• Citation: 64 A. 220,79 Conn. 215
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WOOD v. HOLAH.

64 A. 220

79 Conn. 215

WOOD

v. HOLAH.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1906.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Edward K. Nicholson, Judge.

Action on contract by Edmund C. Wood against William E. Holah. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Frederick W. Holden, for appellant. Edward F. Hall, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. This action is brought upon an alleged oral contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The substance of the material facts appearing in the finding is as follows: About March 23, 1904, the plaintiff, resident in Stratford, was acting as a real estate broker in the employ of one John W. Fancher, to negotiate an exchange of a farm in Stratford owned by Fancher. One Charles Holah owned a house and lot in Bridgeport, and, prior to March 23d, inquired of the plaintiff if he knew of any farms for sale near Bridgeport. After several interviews the plaintiff told Holah of the Fancher farm and urged him to look at it. With the view of effecting an exchange of Fancher's farm for Holah's city lot, the plaintiff secured the co-operation of one Mrs. Stevens who owned a property for which Fancher was willing to exchange his farm, and arranged for a transaction between the three by which Mrs. Stevens should exchange her property with Holah, and Holah being thus possessed of Mrs. Stevens property should exchange that with Fancher for his farm. One of the terms of the proposed transaction was that Holah should pay Fancher $300 in cash. This Holah declined to do, and his refusal brought the transaction to a standstill. At this point the defendant, William E. Holah, son of Charles Holah, being desirous that his father should move into the country, signed and delivered to the plaintiff the following written agreement: "I hereby agree to pay E. C. Wood the sum of $180 provided the exchange in property between my father and John W. Fancher is consummated as by the terms of the agreement made this day." This transaction fell through, because Mrs. Stevens withdrew from the negotiations, and thereupon it was agreed that the above-written agreement was of no force, and should be destroyed. After some time and negotiation one William Beardsley was secured to act as a third party for an exchange. An agreement between Fancher, Beardsley, and Charles Holah was negotiated by the plaintiff similar in its nature, but different in detail from the agreement formerly arranged between Fancher, Stevens, and Charles Holah, and this latter agreement was consummated. Thereupon the plaintiff claimed that prior to his active participation in...