Firszt v. Wdowiak

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Firszt v. Wdowiak

133 A. 586, 104 Conn. 744, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 158

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMay 29, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 A. 586 (Firszt v. Wdowiak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Firszt v. Wdowiak, 133 A. 586, 104 Conn. 744, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 158 (Colo. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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 Atl. 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.”

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

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 Atl. 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.”

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A. 586, 104 Conn. 744, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firszt-v-wdowiak-conn-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack