Eames v. Mayo
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.
The plaintiffs’ evidence tended to prove that the plaintiffs were brokers and promoters; that the defendant Virginius J. Mayo agreed with them to pay them a commission in case they procured a purchaser, on terms stated, for the Mayo Radiator Company, which the defendant Mayo professed to own or control; that the plaintiffs induced the firm of C. R. Bergman & Company to agree to purchase the property and business on the terms stated in a form of contract admitted in evidence as Exhibit B; that Bergman & Company were ready, able and willing to buy on the terms stated in Exhibit B, and that the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
- Reyher v. FinkeldeyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018