Pentino v. Gallo
This text of 118 A. 594 (Pentino v. Gallo) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
118 A. 594, 98 Conn. 97, 1922 Conn. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pentino-v-gallo-conn-1922.