Legal Opinion

Eames v. Mayo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided August 4, 1922PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Menard v. Coronet Motel, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
  2. Reyher v. FinkeldeyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API