DuPerow v. Groomes

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

DuPerow v. Groomes

42 App. D.C. 287, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2273

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 4, 1914

DocketNo. 2647

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 42 App. D.C. 287 (DuPerow v. Groomes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DuPerow v. Groomes, 42 App. D.C. 287, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2273 (D.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

1. It was error to permit this memorandum to be offered in evidence. It was not used, nor was it necessary to be used, by plaintiff to refresh his memory. Gurley v. MacLennan, 17 App. D. C. 170, 179; Sechrist v. Atkinson, 31 App. D. C. 1, 5; Rudd v. Buxton, 41 App. D. C. 353.

2. It is unimportant to consider the other assignments of error relating to exceptions to evidence and to instructions given and refused.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

1. It was error to permit this memorandum to be offered in evidence. It was not used, nor was it necessary to be used, by plaintiff to refresh his memory. Gurley v. MacLennan, 17 App. D. C. 170, 179; Sechrist v. Atkinson, 31 App. D. C. 1, 5; Rudd v. Buxton, 41 App. D. C. 353.

2. It is unimportant to consider the other assignments of error relating to exceptions to evidence and to instructions given and refused.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 App. D.C. 287, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duperow-v-groomes-dc-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack