Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MAUCK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 72
    LAZZARA et al v. GLAZER et al
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
    No. 4629.
    Decided Nov. 12, 1923
    182. BROKERS — Commission to sell real estate interest for stipulated sum and commfission held not agreement “to find a purchaser.”
    Attorneys — Nuccio & Romano, for Lazzara; Wm. H Thomas, for Glazer.
   MAUCK, J.

Epitomized Opinion

First Publication of this Opinion

This was an action for a real estate commission. The plaintiffs’ petition set forth that the defendants engaged them to find a purchaser of certain real estate. The record indicated that the plaintiffs never offered any testimony that they were merely to “find a purchaser.” M. Lazzara testified that the defendants’ proposition was:

“I will giv-e you $500 on this property if you will be - able to sell it for $15,500, so that $15,000 will remain.”

The case was tried in the Municipal Court of Cleveland, where a judgment was rendered for the defendants. Plaintiffs prosecuted error. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

1. As the plaintiffs pleaded an employment whereby they were to “find a purchaser” for the property in question which was not substantiated 'by the evidence, no error was committed in rendering a judgment for the defendants. (Pfanz v. Hamburg, 82 OS. 1, followed; Carey v. Conn, 107 OS. 133, dist.)