Case Name: POWERS et al. v. VECCHIO et ux.
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1963-04-03
Citations: 231 Md. 238
Docket Number: No. 249
Parties: POWERS et al. v. VECCHIO et ux.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 231
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
POWERS et al. v. VECCHIO et ux.
[No. 249,
September Term, 1962.]
Decided April 3, 1963.
The cause was argued before Brune, C. J., and Henderson, Prescott, Horney and Sybert, JJ.
Anthony J. Nolan for appellants.
George D. Solter, with whom were Jacob A. Gross and Due, Nickerson, Whiteford & Taylor on the brief, for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The controversy in this case centers on a claim for commissions on the sale of real estate by the appellants to the appellees, for which the appellants were held liable on the strength of a verbal promise to pay. They now contend that the court erred in admitting testimony to vary the terms of the written contract. The short answer is that the evidence came in without objection or without any ruling by the court on this point, or was brought out by the appellants themselves. Cf. State Roads Comm. v. Bare, 220 Md. 91, 94 and Todd v. Ferrell, 212 Md. 574, 580.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.