Legal Opinion

Albonsky v. Banaitis

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 6, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The plaintiff sues to recover a commission for having procured the sale of defendant’s house under his employment as a real-estate broker. The sale of defendant’s house was made. Plaintiff’s “right to the commission is dependent upon the concurrence of two conditions: (1) the creation either expressly or impliedly of an agency employment to effect a sale, and (2) the execution of the terms of the employment to the extent of procuring a customer ready, able and willing to buy upon the terms prescribed by the owner.” Commander v. Lawler, 94 Conn. 125, 126, 108 Atl. 537. The employment of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Murphy v. LinskeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  2. Commander v. LawlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Morosini v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  2. Crane v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  3. State v. WymanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  4. Deutsch v. LabonneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API