William R. Morse v. Arthur H. Richland Company

Fourth Circuit

William R. Morse v. Arthur H. Richland Company

272 F.2d 183, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3039

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1959

Docket7916_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 F.2d 183 (William R. Morse v. Arthur H. Richland Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William R. Morse v. Arthur H. Richland Company, 272 F.2d 183, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3039 (4th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by a broker, Arthur H. Rich-land, to recover commissions from William R. Morse, the defendant, upon the sale of the latter’s controlling interest in the Maryland Electronic Manufacturing Corporation. The case was tried before District Judge Chesnut without a jury. The defense was that the broker was not the procuring cause of the sale. Although it was not disputed that the plaintiff first produced the ultimate purchaser, Litton Industries, Inc., the defendant contends that there was a complete break in and abandonment of the negotiations; that the purchaser’s interest in the acquisition of the stock was later revived on the initiative of Litton Industries, Inc., independently exercised, after an alleged change in circumstances; and that the plaintiff’s activities played no effective role in the consummated sale.

The District Judge has fully and adequately reviewed the testimony, resolved such questions of credibility as arose, and concluded that the plaintiff was in fact the procuring cause of the sale and entitled to the claimed commissions. We agree with this conclusion and adopt the District Judge’s opinion. D.C.Md.1959, 169 F.Supp. 544.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by a broker, Arthur H. Rich-land, to recover commissions from William R. Morse, the defendant, upon the sale of the latter’s controlling interest in the Maryland Electronic Manufacturing Corporation. The case was tried before District Judge Chesnut without a jury. The defense was that the broker was not the procuring cause of the sale. Although it was not disputed that the plaintiff first produced the ultimate purchaser, Litton Industries, Inc., the defendant contends that there was a complete break in and abandonment of the negotiations; that the purchaser’s interest in the acquisition of the stock was later revived on the initiative of Litton Industries, Inc., independently exercised, after an alleged change in circumstances; and that the plaintiff’s activities played no effective role in the consummated sale.

The District Judge has fully and adequately reviewed the testimony, resolved such questions of credibility as arose, and concluded that the plaintiff was in fact the procuring cause of the sale and entitled to the claimed commissions. We agree with this conclusion and adopt the District Judge’s opinion. D.C.Md.1959, 169 F.Supp. 544.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F.2d 183, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-r-morse-v-arthur-h-richland-company-ca4-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack