Shoemaker v. Digges

D.C. Circuit

Shoemaker v. Digges

46 App. D.C. 206, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2529

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1917

DocketNo. 2930

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 46 App. D.C. 206 (Shoemaker v. Digges) 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

Shoemaker v. Digges, 46 App. D.C. 206, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2529 (D.C. Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is the law that an owner of property has the right to employ many brokers, and to reserve the right to sell himself, and to pay such broker as shall close the sale with a customer; but, notwithstanding this, if a broker finds a customer with whom the owner closes the deal, and is the real procurer of the sale, he is entitled to his commissions. Bryan v. Abert, 3 App. D. C. 180, 187; Block v. Ryan, 4 App. D. C. 283, 286; Shinn v. Evans, 37 App. D. C. 304, 308; and Moore v. Breuninger, 34 App. D. C. 86, 91.

This question of fact was submitted to the jury in a charge that we find unobjectionable. The jury found that the purchaser was not procured by the defendant, but by plaintiff, who stimulated him to the purchase and was the procuring cause of his offer. They found that defendant did not notify plaintiff of any previous negotiations with Gordon, nor reserve the right to effect a sale to Gordon himself. Plaintiff was left to believe that he had found the purchaser.

This was a question of fact for the jury to determine, and there was no error in .refusing to direct a verdict foi* defendant, or in failing to. give 'the special instruction asked by the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is the law that an owner of property has the right to employ many brokers, and to reserve the right to sell himself, and to pay such broker as shall close the sale with a customer; but, notwithstanding this, if a broker finds a customer with whom the owner closes the deal, and is the real procurer of the sale, he is entitled to his commissions. Bryan v. Abert, 3 App. D. C. 180, 187; Block v. Ryan, 4 App. D. C. 283, 286; Shinn v. Evans, 37 App. D. C. 304, 308; and Moore v. Breuninger, 34 App. D. C. 86, 91.

This question of fact was submitted to the jury in a charge that we find unobjectionable. The jury found that the purchaser was not procured by the defendant, but by plaintiff, who stimulated him to the purchase and was the procuring cause of his offer. They found that defendant did not notify plaintiff of any previous negotiations with Gordon, nor reserve the right to effect a sale to Gordon himself. Plaintiff was left to believe that he had found the purchaser.

This was a question of fact for the jury to determine, and there was no error in .refusing to direct a verdict foi* defendant, or in failing to. give 'the special instruction asked by the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 App. D.C. 206, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoemaker-v-digges-cadc-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack