Case ID: conn_104/html/0744-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Firszt vs. Rudolph Wdowiak et al.
    First Judicial' District, Hartford,
    May Term, 1926.
    Wheeler, C. J., Curtis, Maltbie, Haines and Hinman, Js.
    Argued May 6th
    decided May 29th, 1926.
    Action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by the defendants to confer upon the plaintiff an exclusive agency in the sale of their real estate, brought to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County and tried to the court, Howard, J.; judgment-rendered for the plaintiff for $499, and appeal by the defendants.
    
      No error.
    
    
      John J. Burke, for the appellants (defendants).
    
      Francis E. Jones, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

Errors assigned in finding facts, or in refusing to find facts, are not well taken. As the finding stands the defendants cannot prevail. The plaintiff, as the court finds, entered into a contract with the defendants by which they appointed him their exclusive agent for the period of six months for the sale of 28 Charter Oak Place, Hartford, upon stated terms. After the signing of the contract the plaintiff tried diligently to sell this property, but before he had succeeded the defendants sold it through another agent. The rule of law applicable to a contract of this character is stated in Harris v. McPherson, 97 Conn. 164, 167, 115 Atl. 723, in these terms: “A contract employing a broker as an exclusive agent, is an agreement on the part of the owner that during the life of the contract he will not sell the property to a purchaser procured through another agent. This does not preclude the owner from selling to a purchaser of his own procuring.”

There is no error.