Loud v. Hall
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Coktbact upon an account annexed, charging the defendant with “ commissions for services in sale of ship Highlander, one and one quarter per cent, on $100,000.” Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Coktbact upon an account annexed, charging the defendant with “ commissions for services in sale of ship Highlander, one and one quarter per cent, on $100,000.” Answer, a general denial. Trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., without a jury, who made a report thereof which referred to the pleadings and continued thus: “ The facts I find as follows: The plaintiffs were a firm of ship-brokers in the city of New York, in 1869. In the early part of that year the defendant was introduced to one of the plaintiffs at their office, as a person who might be useful to him in the sale of the…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
To support an action by a broker for commissions, proof that he effected or procured a sale is doubtless necessary, in *he absence of evidence of usage, or express or implied contract, or acts of the defendant preventing a completion of the bargain ay the broker. Cook v. Welch, 9 Allen, 350. Tombs v. Alexander, 101 Mass. 255.
The claim óf the brokers for commissions in the present case being founded on usage, it was necessary for them to prove it. Cook v. Welch, 9 Allen, 350, 352. Read v. Rann, 10 B. & C. 438. And it was of course competent for the defendant to introduce any evidence which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tombs v. AlexanderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by12 opinions
- Rice v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Cadigan v. CrabtreeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Ward v. FletcherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Gleason v. NelsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Duval v. MoodyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1900
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.