Case Name: LAZZARA et al v. GLAZER et al
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-11-12
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 90
Docket Number: No. 4629
Parties: LAZZARA et al v. GLAZER et al
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 90–90

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.)