
    Albert-Hopkins Corp. vs. Joseph Caputo & others.
    April 1, 1970.
   In this action of contract to recover a broker’s commission, the plaintiff’s sole exception is to the allowance of the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. It was prerequisite to the plaintiff’s recovery “in any suit or action” that it have been “a duly licensed broker at the time such services were performed.” G. L. c. 112, § 87RR (inserted by St. 1957, c. 726, § 2). The plaintiff’s declaration alleged that “it was a real estate broker duly licensed by the Commonwealth of Massac chusetts.” By their general denial the defendants “made it incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove every element of . . . [its] case . ...” Herman v. Fine, 314 Mass. 67, 69. The record discloses no evidence whatever that the plaintiff corporation was licensed to act as a real estate broker. There was accordingly no error in directing a verdict for the defendants.

Matthew T. Connolly for the plaintiff.

Paul A. Carbone for the defendants.

Exceptions overruled.  