Nichols v. Gaston

D.C. Circuit

Nichols v. Gaston

112 F.2d 220, 72 App. D.C. 186, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4269

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1940

DocketNo. 7436

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 F.2d 220 (Nichols v. Gaston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nichols v. Gaston, 112 F.2d 220, 72 App. D.C. 186, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4269 (D.C. Cir. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellees brought this action in the court below to recover from appellant a $2,000 brokerage commission. There was a waiver of jury and a judgment by the court in their favor. On this appeal the single ground urged for reversal is that the proposed purchasers furnished by ap-pellees failed to comply with the terms of sale, in that they refused to consent to the appointment of a trustee selected by appellant. The trial court found that appellant employed appellees to find a purchaser for his restaurant business located in Washington City; that appellees produced a purchaser ready, able, and willing to purchase the business at a price and on terms and conditions agreed to by appellant; and that the failure to consummate the sale was due, not to any fault of the purchaser, but to appellant’s refusal to carry out the bargain. Dotson v. Milliken, 27 App. D.C. 500, 514, affirmed, 209 U.S. 237, 28 S.Ct. 489, 52 L.Ed. 768. The pertinent testimony was in sharp conflict, and we are not only unable to say that the findings are “clearly erroneous,” but upon a fair consideration, we are of opinion they are amply supported by the evidence. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellees brought this action in the court below to recover from appellant a $2,000 brokerage commission. There was a waiver of jury and a judgment by the court in their favor. On this appeal the single ground urged for reversal is that the proposed purchasers furnished by ap-pellees failed to comply with the terms of sale, in that they refused to consent to the appointment of a trustee selected by appellant. The trial court found that appellant employed appellees to find a purchaser for his restaurant business located in Washington City; that appellees produced a purchaser ready, able, and willing to purchase the business at a price and on terms and conditions agreed to by appellant; and that the failure to consummate the sale was due, not to any fault of the purchaser, but to appellant’s refusal to carry out the bargain. Dotson v. Milliken, 27 App. D.C. 500, 514, affirmed, 209 U.S. 237, 28 S.Ct. 489, 52 L.Ed. 768. The pertinent testimony was in sharp conflict, and we are not only unable to say that the findings are “clearly erroneous,” but upon a fair consideration, we are of opinion they are amply supported by the evidence. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F.2d 220, 72 App. D.C. 186, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-gaston-cadc-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack