Stuart v. Newman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for $500, a commission alleged to have been, earned by procuring a customer ready, able and willing to purchase the defendant’s garage at 40 Aspinwall Avenue in Brookline. Writ dated August 7, 1919. In the Superior Court, the action was tried before Fox, J. Material evidence, rulings requested and refused, and instructions given are described in the opinion. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $500; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
The plaintiff was generally employed to find a customer ready, able and willing to buy the defendant’s lease of a garage, and if he succeeded in making a sale satisfactory to the seller his commission was to be ten per cent of the purchase price. The essential evidence of the parties covering their subsequent dealings is irreconcilable. But the jury who were to determine the facts could find on the plaintiff’s testimony, that in response to his advertisement one Ehrlich offered $4,500 on July 27, 1919, which the defendant upon notice of the offer declined, “saying plaintiff must get $500…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fitzpatrick v. GilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Munroe v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Cadigan v. CrabtreeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Carnes v. HowardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Kimball v. HayesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Walsh v. GrantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Driscoll v. BunarMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
- Semonian v. BloombergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Cohen v. ShaineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Remington v. CrimminsMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1945