TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Menton v. Melvin

James C. Menton vs. Ethel J. Melvin

Menton v. Melvin, 113 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. 1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 2, 1953
Judges
Qua, Lummus, Wilkins, Williams, Counihan
Citations
113 N.E.2d 447330 Mass. 3551953 Mass. LEXIS 476

Opinion — Williams

Williams, J.

This is an action of contract brought in the Second District Court of Eastern Middlesex to recover a real estate brokerage commission. The judge found for the plaintiff and reported the case to the Appellate Division which sustained his findings and rulings. The defendant appealed.

There was evidence substantially as follows. In May, 1950, the defendant requested the plaintiff, who was a real estate broker, to sell her dwelling house in Watertown. The selling price was $10,500 cash and it was understood that the plaintiff should receive a 5% commission. The plaintiff produced as prospective buyers Norman O’Clair and wife who on July 21, 1950, executed a written agreement with the defendant for the purchase of the property for $10,500, the conveyance to be made on or before August 31. The O’Clairs made a deposit of $100. Nothing was said in the agreement about a mortgage but, after the agreement was signed, there was talk between the parties to the agree *356 ment and the plaintiff about arranging a mortgage to the Watertown Co-operative Bank for $7,500. Later it was found that such a mortgage was unobtainable and on August 17 O’Clair wrote to the defendant that he and his wife could get a mortgage for only $7,000 and that $3,000 in cash was all that they wanted to pay. It appeared that the defendant subsequently returned the deposit to the O’Clairs without first obtaining the consent of the plaintiff.

The judge found and ruled that the O’Clairs entered into a binding written agreement with the defendant to purchase the property on the defendant’s terms as set forth in the agreement, but that in fact they were not financially able to purchase on those terms. He ruled that by executing the agreement the defendant accepted the O’Clairs as purchasers ready, able, and willing to buy; that the plaintiff had earned his commission; and that his right to it was not adversely affected by the return of the deposit. There was a finding for the plaintiff in the amount of $525.

We think there was no error in these findings and rulings. The agreement between the defendant and the O’Clairs was an unconditional and unqualified contract to sell and buy a described property on or before a certain date for $10,500. It was binding on both the seller and the buyers. There was no provision regarding a mortgage. By executing the agreement the defendant accepted the O’Clairs as purchasers ready, able, and willing to purchase on the terms therein stated.

Johnson v. Holland, 211 Mass. 363, 364 .

Stone v. Melbourne, 326 Mass. 372, 373 .

The judge found that the defendant “listed” her property with the plaintiff for sale. If such listing be construed to mean that the plaintiff was employed to find a customer ready, able, and willing to purchase on the defendant’s terms, he earned his commission by producing customers whom she accepted. His rights were fixed by the execution of the sale agreement and were not affected by the actual inability of the. buyers to perform or the later return of the deposit.

Roche v. Smith, 176 Mass. 595, 597 .

Johnson v. Holland, 211 Mass. 363, 364 .

Stone v. Melbourne, *357 326 Mass. 372, 373 . If by listing the property it was the understanding of the parties that the plaintiff should effect a sale, it is settled that he became entitled to his commission when the defendant executed a binding contract of sale with the O’Clairs. A sale was effected within the meaning of the brokerage agreement.

Rice v. Mayo, 107 Mass. 550 .

Chapin v. Bridges, 116 Mass. 105 .

Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518, 521 .

Burnham v. Upton, 174 Mass. 408 .

Roche v. Smith, 176 Mass. 595, 597 . Compare E. A. Strout Realty Agency, Inc.

v. Gargan, 328 Mass. 524 .

The defendant’s requests for rulings, which raise no question of law other than those herein discussed, were correctly dealt with by the judge.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

Mr. Justice Wilkins concurs in the result for the reason that in the report there is no statement that it contains all the material evidence.

Irving v. Bonjorno, 327 Mass. 516, 518 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1957: 21958: 41960: 11961: 21964: 21968: 21973: 11976: 11984: 11987: 119572026peak 1958 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parkhill v. Denaro30 Mass. App. Dec. 95 (1964)
  2. Richards v. Gilbert146 N.E.2d 921 (Mass. 1958)
  3. Capezzuto v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance462 N.E.2d 1131 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)
  4. Dial Realty, Inc. v. Staiti22 Mass. App. Dec. 132 (1961)
  5. Comfort Air Systems, Inc. v. Cacopardo346 N.E.2d 835 (Mass. 1976)
  6. Gaynor v. Laverdure291 N.E.2d 617 (Mass. 1973)

Most recent

  1. Car Market Car Rental Inc. v. Clouden1987 Mass. App. Div. 126 (1987)
  2. Capezzuto v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance462 N.E.2d 1131 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)
  3. Comfort Air Systems, Inc. v. Cacopardo346 N.E.2d 835 (Mass. 1976)
  4. Gaynor v. Laverdure291 N.E.2d 617 (Mass. 1973)
  5. Benway v. Pinto41 Mass. App. Dec. 13 (1968)
  6. Coleman v. Kennedy40 Mass. App. Dec. 182 (1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 9

DepthCaseCited by
Roche v. Smith, 51 L.R.A. 510 (Mass. 1900) 49
Johnson v. Holland, 97 N.E. 755 (Mass. 1912) 21
Stone v. Melbourne, 94 N.E.2d 783 (Mass. 1950) 18
Rice v. Mayo, 107 Mass. 550 (1871) 45
Ward v. Cobb, 20 N.E. 174 (Mass. 1889) 41
E. A. Strout Realty Agency, Inc. v. Gargan, 105 N.E.2d 208 (Mass. 1952) 39
Irving v. Bonjorno, 99 N.E.2d 643 (Mass. 1951) 32
Burnham v. Upton, 54 N.E. 873 (Mass. 1899) 14
Chapin v. Bridges, 116 Mass. 105 (1874) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list