Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gill v. American Security Corporation

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 29, 1965No. 3650Published

1DissentCayton, Judge

Believing that the trial judge was right in directing a verdict, I respectfully dissent from the foregoing opinion.

The ruling below was made on the basis of the entire record, all essential facts were stipulated, and it clearly appeared that there was no factual issue to be decided and no legal theory on which plaintiff broker could *632be permitted to recover. Hence defendants were entitled to have the case decided as a matter of law.

This case does not fall within the general rule that a broker earns a commission when he procures a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy on the seller’s terms…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dixon v. BernsteinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
  2. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. HomeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API