District Court, Appellate division. Practice, Civil, Appellate division. Broker, Commission.
A request, by the defendant at the trial of an action of contract in a district court, for a ruling that, "Upon all the evidence and the law the defendant is entitled to a finding," presents the question of law, whether upon all the evidence the plaintiff is entitled to recover; and, if the judge refuses the request and finds for the plaintiff, and, at the request of the defendant, reports the question to the Appellate Division, and the record before the Appellate Division shows that there was no evidence at the trial warranting a finding for the plaintiff, it is proper for the Appellate Division to order the finding reversed and judgment entered for the defendant. In the circumstances above described, it was held to have been proper for the Appellate Division to order judgment for the defendant in an action of contract by a broker for a commission for procuring a sale of real estate where there was no evidence of a contract of exclusive brokerage or that the plaintiff procured even an offer from one who finally purchased the property and it appeared that the sale was made through the efforts of others.
BY THE COURT.
The question of law was raised in the trial court whether upon all the evidence the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The request for a finding for the defendant presented that question. When the case came before the Appellate Division it was rightly ruled that the finding for the plaintiff ought to be reversed and judgment entered for the defendant. St. 1922, c. 532, § 8, adding § 110A to G.L.c. 231. It is not necessary to narrate the evidence in detail. It is enough to say that it was insufficient to support a finding that the plaintiff was the efficient cause of bringing about the sale of real estate on which he sought to recover a commission.
Order reversing finding for the plaintiff and directing judgment for the defendant affirmed.