Hiltz v. Williams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover $70 as a commission for negotiating a sale of real estate in Wellesley. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Dunbar, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. There was evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff was station agent for the Boston and Albany Railroad Company, at Eliot, in the city of Newton; and that he did a real estate business with the consent of the railroad authorities.
Read the full summary
Contract, to recover $70 as a commission for negotiating a sale of real estate in Wellesley. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Dunbar, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. There was evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff was station agent for the Boston and Albany Railroad Company, at Eliot, in the city of Newton; and that he did a real estate business with the consent of the railroad authorities. The plaintiff testified, in substance, as follows: “ Previous to November 14, 1894,1 had been informed that the defendant had some real estate for…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. There was evidence that the defendant employed the plaintiff to sell the land, and that the plaintiff, in pursuance of this employment, called Foster’s attention to the land, and had some talk with him about purchasing it. It was competent for the court trying the case without a jury to infer from the evidence that Foster ultimately purchased the land in consequence of the efforts of the plaintiff to sell it.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Stuart v. ValsomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Waters v. Pacific Wool Products Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Bell v. Siemens & Halske Electric Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Morrison v. HallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915