Firszt v. Wdowiak
Joseph Firszt vs. Rudolph Wdowiak Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
Errors assigned in finding facts, or in refusing to find facts, are not well taken. As the finding stands the defendants cannot prevail. The plaintiff, as the court finds, entered into a contract with the defendants by which they appointed him their exclusive agent for the period of six months for the sale of 28 Charter Oak Place, Hartford, upon stated terms. After the signing of the contract the plaintiff tried diligently to sell this property, but before he had succeeded the defendants sold it through another agent. The rule of law applicable to a contract of this character is stated in Harris v. McPherson, 97 Conn. 164, 167 , 115 Atl. 723 , in these terms: “A contract employing a broker as an exclusive agent, is an agreement on the part of the owner that during the life of the contract he will not sell the property to a purchaser procured through another agent. This does not preclude the owner from selling to a purchaser of his own procuring.”
There is no error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.