(DOWNLOAD) "Glassman Et Al. v. Barron Et Al." by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Glassman Et Al. v. Barron Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 09, 1931
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
CROSBY, J. This is an action of contract to recover a real estate broker's commission. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The case is here on exceptions to the denial of the defendants' motion that the trial Judge require the plaintiffs to elect on which count of the declaration they relied, to the denial of the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, to the admission of certain evidence, and to the refusal to give their requests for instructions. The defendants are brothers-in-law. The defendant Gordon owned a house in Somerville, and the defendant Barron owned a brick block in Everett, hereinafter called the Everett Stores. There was evidence tending to show the following facts: In the spring of 1927, Gordon listed his house with the plaintiffs for sale. Late in September, 1927, Barron employed the plaintiffs to sell the Everett Stores at an asking price of $20,000, and the plaintiffs were to be paid the usual commission. At this time the plaintiffs had for sale certain real estate in Somerville called the Magoun Square block, for which the owner, one Liberman, was asking $80,000. The plaintiff, Max Glassman, who will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff, testified that he told Barron about this property and that Barron said he would like to exchange his Everett Stores for it and said 'we could use the store for my brother-in-law.' At this time Gordon went to the plaintiffs and said that he understood Barron was interested in the Magoun Square block and that he would like to have his property go in on the trade with the Everett Stores for the Magoun Square block. Liberman refused to exchange as suggested, and when Barron heard of this he said to the plaintiff, 'Well, go ahead, try somebody else, something else might come up in the matter of exchange or cash customer, see what you can do.' In October, 1927, one Connors acquired the Magoun Square block and took title in the name of one Howlett, a 'straw man,' who was authorized to employ brokers to sell the property. Howlett saw the plaintiff, and quoted a price of $80,000; afterwards the plaintiff showed Gordon's house to Howlett and took him to see Gordon, where the situation respecting the properties of each defendant was explained to him. Gordon told Howlett to look at the Everett Stores and to let him know about an exchange. He gave him a price of $20,000 on the Everett Stores subject to a first mortgage of $11,000 and a second mortgage of $3,000. Gordon told Howlett to look at both properties for an exchange as he, Gordon, was interested for a store, and that Barron wanted to buy the property with him for an investment. The plaintiff told Gordon all about the Magoun Square block and Gordon said he would talk it over with Barron. The same night the plaintiff telephoned Barron from Gordon's Store and explained the situation and Barron said 'Go ahead, try to make a deal if you can. You know I am interested in the Magoun Square building, it is a nice piece of property and if you can pull through the deal, go to it'; 'you go ahead for the deal and if Howlett and Connors don't want his (Gordon's) house I can fix it up with Mr. Gordon.' Barron further told him that he could give the information to Gordon at any time. After further negotiations between Howlett and the defendants, in which the plaintiff took part, it could be found that Howlett agreed that he would exchange the equity in the Magoun Square block for the equity in the Everett Stores owned by Barron, if the defendants would pay the commissions on both properties. There was further evidence that the defendants agreed to these terms; that they employed the plaintiffs to effect the exchange on the above terms; and that the agreement for the exchange was consummated through the efforts of the plaintiff.