Giles v. Swift
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon an account annexed, by a real estate broker, to recover commissions for services alleged to have been rendered the defendant in relation to three parcels of land in Somerville, designated as the Hanley, Linnehan, and Sanborn estates, respectively. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bond, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
1. The rulings asked, that the plaintiff -could recover nothing for services in respect to the Hanley estate, were rightly refused. It is true, the plaintiff’s original authority was only to purchase the whole estate. But it appeared that the title could not be got all at once, as the property belonged to three different persons or estates. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff did something in respect to securing a title, and that he got a conveyance of an undivided third, which the defendant accepted, and that the .defendant finally got the title to the whole estate, and the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hurley v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Murray v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
3Cited by8 opinions
- Danforth v. ChandlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Silverlieb v. HebshieMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
- Preble v. HigginsSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1920
- State v. LongDelaware Court of Oyer and Terminer · 1923
- Haskell v. TukesburySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.