Pentino v. Gallo

118 A. 594, 98 Conn. 97, 1922 Conn. LEXIS 10
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 27, 1922·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff seeks to recover upon ' his agreement with defendants for his services in effecting a trade of defendants’ property. He offered evidence tending to prove that he procured Paul M. Rosengarten, who offered to trade a certain farm for defendants’ property, and that defendants and Rosengarten agreed upon the terms of said trade. The plaintiff failed to offer evidence that the owner of this farm, *98 Pauline Rosengarten, wife of said Paul M. Rosengarten, ever agreed to the trade, or authorized her husband to make it, or ratified it. The plaintiff therefore failed to carry out his agreement to produce a customer ready, able and willing to complete the trade in conformity to the terms of his contract of employment, and the judgment of nonsuit was not erroneous.

There is no error.

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

Pentino v. Gallo, 118 A. 594, 98 Conn. 97, 1922 Conn. LEXIS 10 (Colo. 1922).

118 A. 594 (Pentino v. Gallo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grillo v. Howe
239 A.2d 59 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1967)