Rockwell v. Newton

The defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff, a real estate broker, $70 if he would find a person with whom he could exchange certain land owned by him for other land on satisfactory terms. The plaintiff found A, who offered to give the defendant for his land certain real estate of his own, which he stated to be encumbered to the amount of $3,000 and no more, and a certain sum in money. The defendant accepted the offer and the parties agreed to meet at the plaintiff’s office at a later hour the same day and execute the deeds, which the defendant requested the plaintiff to prepare. The plaintiff prepared the deeds and A attended at the time agreed, but the defendant did not come, and never consummated the exchange. It appeared that, after the parties separated at the first meeting, the defendant discovered that there was a lien of $300 for unpaid taxes on M’s land, but he did not inform M or give any reason for abandoning the exchange. M had failed to mention the tax lien by inadvertence, and was able and prepared to pay the taxes and remove it. In a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover the $70 for procuring a party to make the exchange, it was held that he could not recover. The defendant, finding that M had misstated the amount of the incumbrance on his property, had a right to drop the negotiation at once, without further communication with him.

Assumpsit, to recover brokerage; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and tried to the court on the general issue before Sumner, J. The court found the following facts and made them a part of the record. The defendant, some time in the spring of 1876, agreed with the plaintiff, who was a real estate broker living in the city of Hartford, that he would give him $70 if he would find some one with whom he could exchange certain real estate which he owned, upon terms which should be satisfactory to him. Through the agency of the plaintiff the defendant and one Norman Smith were brought together at the office of the plaintiff on the morning of May 4th, 1876. Smith was the owner of real estate on Capen street in Hartford, which he offered to exchange for the defendant’s property on the following terms: Smith to convey to the defendant his property encumbered by a mortgage of $3,000, which he represented to be the extent of the encumbrances upon it, and to give his notes to the amount of $2,500, secured by mortgage upon the property lie was to get from the defendant. The defendant accepted the proposition, and agreed to meet Smith at the plaintiff’s office on the afternoon of the same day for the purpose of making the exchange, and the defendant instructed the plaintiff to have the deeds and papers necessary to consummate the bargain prepared accordingly. The deeds and papers were so prepared by the plaintiff, and Smith was ready at the time and place named to execute the agreement on his part. The defendant however failed to appear, and from that time has wholly refused to execute his part of the agreement. The defendant has never given, or offered to give, to the plaintiff, or to Smith, any reason for his failure to comply with the agreement. But the court finds that after making the agreement with Smith, and before the time of meeting him at the plaintiff’s office on the afternoon of May 4th, the defendant found that taxes to the amount of $300 were due and unpaid upon Smith’s real estate, which taxes were in addition to the encumbrance of $3,000, and a statutory lien upon his estate. Smith inadvertently omitted to mention the arrears of taxes without intention to deceive or defraud the defendant. The defendant never made complaint to the plaintiff or to Smith on account of the unpaid taxes, or assigned it as a reason to them, or either of them, for the non-fulfillment of his agreement. Neither the plaintiff nor Smith sought the defendant to ascertain why he neglected to meet them at the time agreed. The court finds that Smith was ready, able, and willing, to pay the taxes at the time and place agreed upon to exchange the real estate, and would have paid them had the defendant requested him so to do. But he did not offer to pay the taxes, and did not pay them before the time for the meeting. The plaintiff himself was ignorant of the condition of Smith’s encumbrances. Upon these facts the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover $70 and his costs. The defendant brought the record before this court by a motion in error.