Zimmerman v. Garvey
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover upon an express promise to pay a stated sum for services rendered by a real-estate broker, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, Coats, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for 8300, and appeal by the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtPrentice, J.
A recognized rule of public policy forbids a real-estate broker, as it does agents generally, to act for both parties to a transaction, in the absence of their knowledge that he is so acting and their express or implied assent thereto. One who acts in violation of this rule cannot recover for his services, even upon an express promise. Farnsworth v. Hemmer, 1 Allen (Mass.) 494; Carman v. Beach, 63 N. Y. 97; Bell v. McConnell, 37 Ohio St. 396. “If, however, both parties have knowledge that the broker is acting for them both, and do not object thereto, but allow him to so act, and agree to pay…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rice v. WoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Carman v. . BeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
3Cited by4 opinions
- Summa v. DereskiawiczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Stagg v. LawtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
- Twiss v. HerbstSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Baskin v. DamConnecticut Appellate Court · 1967