From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Firszt v. Wdowiak

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, May Term, 1926
May 29, 1926
133 A. 586 (Conn. 1926)

Opinion

Argued May 6th, 1926

Decided May 29th, 1926.

ACTION to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by the defendants to confer upon the plaintiff an exclusive agency in the sale of their real estate, brought to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County and tried to the court, Howard, J.; judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $499, and appeal by the defendants. No error.

John J. Burke, for the appellants (defendants).

Francis E. Jones, for the appellee (plaintiff).


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 A. 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."


Summaries of

Firszt v. Wdowiak

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, May Term, 1926
May 29, 1926
133 A. 586 (Conn. 1926)
Case details for

Firszt v. Wdowiak

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH FIRSZT vs. RUDOLPH WDOWIAK ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, May Term, 1926

Date published: May 29, 1926

Citations

133 A. 586 (Conn. 1926)
133 A. 586

Citing Cases

Smyth Sales v. Petroleum Heat Power Co.

There is no case directly on point in either state. However there are cases in both jurisdictions which allow…

Real Estate Listing Serv. v. Real Estate Commission

Because only three types of real estate listing agreements have traditionally been used in this state, the…