Legal Opinion

Sam Blanken & Co. v. Tinos, Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 12, 1966No. 3773PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOOD, Chief Judge.

This action was brought by appellant-broker to recover a commission on the sale of Tino’s Villa, a restaurant business. The trial court found for appellee, the vendor of the business.

It is well settled that a broker cannot recover a commission under an ordinary brokerage agreement unless he was the procuring cause of the sale. O’Brien v. Morgan, D.C.Mun.App., 104 A.2d 411 (1954). And the question of whether a broker is the procuring cause of a sale is usually one of fact. Webster v. Perper, D.C.Mun.App., 83 A.2d 433 (1951). This was the issue of fact presented to the trial…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Webster v. PerperDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1951
  2. O'BRIEN v. MorganDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1954

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Reiman & Co. v. Eromanga Investment, N.V.District Court, District of Columbia · 1985
  2. Hamady v. Trammell Crow Asset Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1993
  3. Frey v. ChastainDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API