The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1917-01-27
REALTY BROKERS GET DECISION
 IN TEST CASE
Independent Dealers Claim ed Each Was Responsi-
 ble for Efecting Sale.

James H. Dorus, the former Main
 street merchant, has lost suit against
 Mrs. Lucy A. Fitzpatrick which he
 brought to recover $145 commission alleged to be due for selling the Fitz- patrick property on Sanford avenue. Judge Walsh of the common pleas court handed down the decision yes- terday afternoon. The court found it was not Dorus but another real estate agent who had completed the sale.
 Mrs. Fitzpatrick was willing to pay commission but did not know to which claimant it should be given.
 Judge Walsh also gave judgment for S62.0 GA to V. F. Aims of this city, who sued his landlord, Edward D. Hayes.
 Aims said he had an agreement with Hayes whereby the landlord agreed to pay him $50 and $14 expenses if forced to move. When he was told to quit the premises Aims said Hayes refused to keep the agreement.
 The decision of, Judge Walsh settles a question of much interest and value to real estate agents and those offer ing real estate for sale. The suit in- volved the claims of two independent brokers to the, commission The de- fendant, Mrs. Fitzpatrick, was ready and willing to pay the commission to the agent who had earned it. She be- lieved that Lacey R. Blackman was the agent who had sold her property and decided to pay him. Dorus dis puted the right of Blackman to the commission. and brought suit against Mrs. Fitzpatrick. The facts in the case were as follows: Mrs. FitZpat- rick had a piece of property on San- ford avenue which she desired to sell. She placed it in the hands of several real estate agents, among them being Dorus and Blackman.
 In November, 1915, she stated the terms to Dorus on which she would Sell MT. Dorus interested a MT. Han dleman in the property and MT. Han dleman desired to purchase it, but would. not meet the terms proposed by the owner. He would not put in the amount of cash which Mrs. F'itZpat- rick desired but wanted her to take a second mortgage. MT. Dorus brought Handleman to the Fitzpatrick house and showed him the property, but could not get an agreement between the seller and buyer on the terms laid down by Mrs. Fitzpatrick. The de- fendant and her family, together with MT. Handleman, say that for two months nothing further was done by Mr. Dorus toward bringing about the sale to MT. Handleman, although MT. Dorus claimed that he remained ac- tive in the matter.
 In the latter part nf January, 1916 Mr. Handleman went into the office of B1ackman & Son on Fairfield avenue and asked if they had any houses which he could buy, telling them the section of the city in which he desired a home. They gave . him a list of places which they had. including the house in question on Sanford avenue. In a few days, MT. Handleman re- turned to the office of Blackman & Son, saying that he liked the Sanford avenue place and desired to purchase it if he could. He said nothing about l having previously seen the house with l MT. Dorus. Lacey R. sBlackman then i induced MT. Handlenan to make an offer which would give to the owner | all cash over and above the savings 1 bank mortgage on the property. The | selling price was a little below that l offered by Mr. Dorus. Mr. Blackman | then took the proposition to Mrs. Fitzpatrick and induced her to accept | it. The transaction between MT. ! Blackman and MT. Handleman was in |
  man and without knowledge of any | previous efforts on the part of MT. Dorus.> He did not know that MT. Do- rus had figured in the transaction un- i til after he had taken the deposit from | MT. Handleman and had told Mrs | Fitzpatrick who his customer was l and she then told him that Mr. Han | dleman had seen the house with MT. Dorus. It was supposed by all con- cerned that MT. Dorus had dropped l out of the matter two months prior to | the sale, as no efforts had been made l by him to bring about the consumma- | tion of the deal
 Judge Walsh finds that the question | for the court to determine was which | agent was the procuring cause of the l sale. He says in his memorandum of | decision, that he is convinced that the | sale was brought by the successful ef- | forts of MT. Blackman and that he | was the efficient cause of the sale. | He therefore held that MT. Dorus is | not entitled to any commission and | rendered Judgment in favor of the de- fendant. Mrs. F'itzpatrick