Abel v. Nelson

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Abel v. Nelson

104 N.Y.S. 362

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 16, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 N.Y.S. 362 (Abel v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abel v. Nelson, 104 N.Y.S. 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

BRADY, J.

The defendant employed the plaintiff to sell goods under a written agreement to pay him 7-J per cent, commission on all net sales which he procured, said commissions to be paid after the payment for the goods sold by the salesman. The provision in the agreement that the commission was payable only after the goods were paid for places upon the plaintiff only the obligation of showing that either the goods sold were in fact paid for or that the failure to fill the orders was the fault of the defendant. Stone v. Argersinger, 32 App. Div. 210, 53 N. Y. Supp. 63; Taylor v. E. M. S. Co., 124 N. Y. 188, 26 N. E. 314. It appears that orders to the amount of $1,165.90 were obtained and forwarded by the plaintiff to the defendant, and that goods to the value only of $400.75 were shipped by the defendant. The testimony is involved, and far from precise; but enough exists to warrant the court below in finding for plaintiff on the questions of fact and that he was entitled to judgment for the full amount.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRADY, J.

The defendant employed the plaintiff to sell goods under a written agreement to pay him 7-J per cent, commission on all net sales which he procured, said commissions to be paid after the payment for the goods sold by the salesman. The provision in the agreement that the commission was payable only after the goods were paid for places upon the plaintiff only the obligation of showing that either the goods sold were in fact paid for or that the failure to fill the orders was the fault of the defendant. Stone v. Argersinger, 32 App. Div. 210, 53 N. Y. Supp. 63; Taylor v. E. M. S. Co., 124 N. Y. 188, 26 N. E. 314. It appears that orders to the amount of $1,165.90 were obtained and forwarded by the plaintiff to the defendant, and that goods to the value only of $400.75 were shipped by the defendant. The testimony is involved, and far from precise; but enough exists to warrant the court below in finding for plaintiff on the questions of fact and that he was entitled to judgment for the full amount.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.Y.S. 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abel-v-nelson-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack