Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1871

Rice v. Mayo

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided September 15, 1871 · Gbay

107 Mass. 550

Cases that cite this one

40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Charles W. Walker Realty Co. v. Cart Land Co. (W. Va. 1924)
Gaynor v. Laverdure (Mass. 1973)
Saunders v. Rogerson (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1960)
Finkel v. Weiner (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1958)
MacDonald v. Mihalopoulos (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1957)
Ober v. Joia (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1955)
Menton v. Melvin (Mass. 1953)
Simmons v. Libbey (N.M. 1949)
Remington v. Crimmins (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1945)
Proctor v. Wallace (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1940)
Lyman Loring Brooks v. Gregory (Mass. 1934)
Carter v. Slavick Jewelry Co. (9th Cir. 1928)
Smith-Burns Investment Co. v. Jones (Mich. 1927)
Cannon v. Staples (R.I. 1925)
Jutras v. Boisvert (Me. 1921)
De Briere v. Yeend Bros. Realty Co. (Ala. 1920)
Oregon Home Builders v. Montgomery Inv. Co. (Or. 1919)
Bruce v. Meserve (Mass. 1917)
Cain v. Masurette (Mich. 1917)
W. T. Craft Realty Co. v. Livernash (Colo. App. 1914)
W. T. Craft Realty Co. v. Livernash (Colo. App. 1914)
Knisely v. Leathe (Mo. 1914)
Truitt v. Ansley (Ga. Ct. App. 1913)
Ketcham v. Axelson (Iowa 1913)
Gilliland v. Jaynes (Okla. 1912)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gbay, J.

If the agreement was as contended by the plaintiffs, they were entitled to a commission if they endeavored to sell the defendant’s land, and a sale was afterwards effected, either *552with or without the aid of the plaintiffs • and evidence that the defendant afterwards employed another broker to sell the land was immaterial, either upon the construction of such an agreement, or to prove what the agreement was. Loud v. Hall, 106 Mass. 404. A contract or memorandum in writing, binding both seller and purchaser, was a sale effected, within the meaning of the agreement on which the plaintiffs relied, although a formal deed had not been executed and delivered.

Exceptions overruled.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.