Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Park Road Housing Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Adas Israel Hebrew Congregation et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 225 F.2d 28
Argued May 9, 1955 Decided June 16, 1955 Petition for Rehearing Denied July 13, 1955
Messrs. Thurman L. Dodson and E. Lewis Ferrell, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Leon M. Shinberg, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Martin S. Becker, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Adas Israel Hebrew Congregation.
Mr. Jacob N. Halper, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Ernest F. Coleman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Bishop L. H. Hemingway and certain other appellees.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff real estate broker appeals from a judgment for the defendants in an action for a commission. Count I of the complaint asks judgment against the seller for the amount of the commission which the seller paid to a different broker, the Colonial Investment Company. Count II asks judgment for the same amount, against both the seller and the purchasers, as damages caused by collusion between them to deprive the plaintiff of the commission.
"To become entitled to a commission, a broker must find a purchaser who is able and willing to buy on the identical terms offered by the seller. * * * It is true that the plaintiff first introduced the eventual purchaser to the defendant, but this circumstance alone, though significant, is not determinative, in the present circumstances." Battle v. Price, 63 App.D.C. 326, 327, 72 F.2d 377, 378. The eventual purchaser was not able and willing to buy on the terms offered by the seller until the Colonial Investment Company suggested means of financing the purchase. The evidence supports the District Court's finding that there was no collusion.
Affirmed.