DuPerow v. Groomes
DuPerow v. Groomes
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The burden was upon the plaintiff to establish his case.
It was necessary to show that he had been employed to sell, or find a purchaser for, the lot, and that he was the procuring cause of the sale to such person. Moore & Mill v. Breuninger, 34 App. D. C. 86, 91. If plaintiff was employed to sell the lot, found a purchaser, and brought him and the owner together, the owner could not, by concluding the. sale himself, defeat the right of plaintiff to his commission. Bryan v. Abert, 3 App. D. C. 180, 187; Sechrist v. Atkinson, 31 App. D. C. 1, 5; Moore & Mill v. Breuninger, supra.
So, on the other hand, if the plaintiff did not bring the defendant and Jansen together, but abandoned his effort to do so before they got together and made the purchase and sale, he would not be entitled to recover.
The judgment is reversed with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- DuPEROW v. GROOMES
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Real Estate Brokers; Evidence; Memorandum. 1. A memorandum consisting of the description and price of. a parcel of land, made upon a letter head of the owner by a broker alleged to have been authorized to sell the same, is not admissible in evidence in favor of the broker in an action by him to recover commissions, when not used nor necessary to be used to refresh his memory. (Citing Gurley v. MacLennan, 17 App. D. C. 170; Seehrist v. Atkinson, 31 App. D. C. 1, and Rudd v. Buxton, 41 App. D. C. 353.) 2. A broker suing for commissions for effecting a sale of land has the burden of proving that he was employed to make the sale or find a purchaser, and that he was the procuring cause of the sale made. (Citing Moore & Hill v. Breuninger, 34 App. D. G. 86.) 3. A real estate broker who, having been employed to sell land, finds a purchaser and brings him and the owner together, cannot be deprived of his right to commissions by the owner concluding the sale himself. (Citing Bryan v. Abert, 3 App. D. C. 180; Seehrist v. Atkinson, 31 App. D. C. 1, and Moore v. Breuninger, supra. 4. A real estate broker authorized to sell land by the owner is not entitled to commission, where, after finding a possible purchaser, he fails to bring him and the owner together, and abandons his effort to do so before they get together and make a deal.