(Download) "Borzillo Et Al. v. Thompson Et Al." by District of Columbia Court of Appeals. # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

eBook details

Title: Borzillo Et Al. v. Thompson Et Al.
Author : District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Release Date : January 06, 1948
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 57 KB

Description

CLAGETT, Associate Judge. This action was brought by the contract purchaser of a three-story apartment building to recover his deposit after rescinding the contract. The defendants named were the real estate broker, who had negotiated the contract, and the four sellers, who jointly owned the building. Thereafter the broker filed a cross-action against his co-defendants for his claimed commission for negotiating the contract. Judgment was given in favor of the plaintiff and against the broker for the return of the deposit and in favor of the broker on his cross-claim against the other four defendants for the commission. No appeal was taken from the judgment in favor of plaintiff, and this appeal deals solely with the question whether the broker was entitled to his commission. While there were conflicts in the evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the transaction, these conflicts were resolved by findings of fact made by the trial Judge sitting without a jury. The facts thus determined show that on July 31, 1945, the broker, having heard that the property was for sale, called upon the defendant Bishop, who represented himself and the other defendants, and received a written listing authorizing him to sell the property. In addition to giving the terms of sale Bishop at that time told the broker that the 'rents' for the three apartments were $57.50 a month for the first floor apartment, $150 for the second floor apartment, furnished, and $60 for the third floor apartment. The broker repeated these representations as to the rents to plaintiff. The broker also repeated to Bishop statements made to him by plaintiff that the latter was purchasing the property solely as an investment. The terms, together with a representation of the rents as stated to the broker, were embodied in a sales contract which was signed by plaintiff and also by the four sellers.