From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brotherhood v. Miceli

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Mar 4, 1965
208 A.2d 340 (Conn. 1965)

Opinion

Argued February 2, 1965

Decided March 4, 1965

Action to recover a broker's commission, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before Johnson, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendants and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.

Helen F. Krause, for the appellant (plaintiff).

John A. Arcudi, for the appellees (defendants).


This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered on a verdict which the court refused to set aside. She sued to recover a commission for the sale of property which the defendants eventually sold to a client whom the plaintiff claimed she had originally interested in the property. It is her claim that her efforts on behalf of the defendants and her representations to the buyer were the procuring cause of the sale. On the evidence, the jury were not required to find that the plaintiff had sustained her burden of proving that her efforts were the "predominating producing cause of the sale" under the rule of cases such as Marshall v. Sturgess Jockmus, Inc., 150 Conn. 59, 62, 185 A.2d 472, and Kane v. Brunneau, 141 Conn. 242, 246, 105 A.2d 187. Thus, there was no error in the court's refusal to set aside the verdict.


Summaries of

Brotherhood v. Miceli

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Mar 4, 1965
208 A.2d 340 (Conn. 1965)
Case details for

Brotherhood v. Miceli

Case Details

Full title:CLARA C. BROTHERHOOD v. EMANUELE MICELI ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Mar 4, 1965

Citations

208 A.2d 340 (Conn. 1965)
208 A.2d 340

Citing Cases

Rzucidlo v. Newtown Realty, Inc.

In other words, the broker must be the predominating producing cause of the sale. Brotherhood v. Miceli, 152…

Busker v. United Illuminating Co.

In other words, the broker must be the predominating producing cause of the sale. Brotherhood v. Miceli, 152…