MacNeill v. Madore

134 A.2d 476, 153 Me. 46, 1957 Me. LEXIS 36
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided August 15, 1957·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per curiam.

On exceptions to direction of a verdict for defendant. The essential facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff, a real estate broker, was attempting to sell defendant’s property. She showed the property to Mr. and Mrs. Worden but failed to induce them to purchase. Later, and quite independently, another agent successfully negotiated a sale by the defendant to Miss Margaret Worden, sister of the plaintiff’s prospect. He received his commission. Miss Worden bought the property for herself with her own funds and in good faith. She was not a straw purchaser for her brother and his wife. *47 Plaintiff seeks commission on the sale. She had no contact with the purchaser and did nothing to interest her in the property or induce her to buy it. A commission on a sale is earned only where the broker is the effective and producing cause of the sale, unless the broker is otherwise protected by the specific terms of his contract with the seller. A broker who has no contact with purchaser and no connection with the sale itself obviously is not entitled to commission.

Exceptions overruled.

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

MacNeill v. Madore, 134 A.2d 476, 153 Me. 46, 1957 Me. LEXIS 36 (Me. 1957).

134 A.2d 476 (MacNeill v. Madore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bedard v. Pellon
606 A.2d 205 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)
Bouchard v. Pennell
232 A.2d 800 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1967)
Nisbet v. Linberg
170 A.2d 148 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1961)