
    Michael Pentino vs. Leo Tedesco et al.
    Third Judicial District, New Haven,
    June Term, 1926.
    Wiiehler, C. J., Curtis, Maltbie, Haines and Hinman, Js.
    Argued June 3d
    decided July 30th, 1926.
    Action to recover a commission alleged to have been earned by the plaintiff in the sale of the defendants’ real estate, brought to the District Court of Waterbury and tried to the court, Beardsley, J.; judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $570, and appeal by the defendants.
    
      Error and new trial ordered.
    
    
      James W. Carroll, for the appellants (defendants).
    
      William K. Lawlor, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

Reasons of appeal based upon exceptions to the finding are not well taken. The only other reason of appeal requiring consideration is the overruling of defendants’ claim of law four, “that the plaintiff did not procure a customer who was ready, willing and able to buy the defendants’ said property.” Assuming that this reason of appeal is intended to claim that the subordinate facts do not support this conclusion, we are of opinion that the finding as amended does not support this conclusion.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.  