Long v. Murchison

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Long v. Murchison

62 A.2d 370, 1948 D.C. App. LEXIS 222

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 1948

DocketNo. 722

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 62 A.2d 370 (Long v. Murchison) 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

Long v. Murchison, 62 A.2d 370, 1948 D.C. App. LEXIS 222 (D.C. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

Appeal by an owner of property from a judgment awarding a commission in favor of brokers who claimed to have produced a prospective purchaser of the property on terms prescribed by the owner.

Plaintiff brokers did not prove that their purchaser was financially able to complete the contract and this defect in the proof was suitably challenged in the trial court at the close of plaintiffs’ case and again upon the whole evidence. The trial judge refused to rule that such proof was necessary and entered judgment for plaintiffs.

The ruling was incorrect. Nothing in this field of law is better settled than that a broker to be entitled to a commission must produce a purchaser who is ready, able and willing to buy on the terms authorized by the principal.¹

The fact that the purchaser signed a contract is some evidence that he was willing to proceed with the deal. But it is no evidence that he was financially “ready” or “able” to do so. Without such evidence there can be no valid judgment for a commission.

Reversed with instructions to award a new trial.

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

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

Appeal by an owner of property from a judgment awarding a commission in favor of brokers who claimed to have produced a prospective purchaser of the property on terms prescribed by the owner.

Plaintiff brokers did not prove that their purchaser was financially able to complete the contract and this defect in the proof was suitably challenged in the trial court at the close of plaintiffs’ case and again upon the whole evidence. The trial judge refused to rule that such proof was necessary and entered judgment for plaintiffs.

The ruling was incorrect. Nothing in this field of law is better settled than that a broker to be entitled to a commission must produce a purchaser who is ready, able and willing to buy on the terms authorized by the principal.¹

The fact that the purchaser signed a contract is some evidence that he was willing to proceed with the deal. But it is no evidence that he was financially “ready” or “able” to do so. Without such evidence there can be no valid judgment for a commission.

Reversed with instructions to award a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.2d 370, 1948 D.C. App. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-murchison-dc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack