Alexander v. Miller

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Alexander v. Miller

150 A. 921, 8 N.J. Misc. 348, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 214

DecidedMay 6, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A. 921 (Alexander v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Miller, 150 A. 921, 8 N.J. Misc. 348, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 214 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Appellant sued to recover the sum of $875 for brokerage commissions for the sale of premises 522-524-526 South Orange avenue, Newark. There was no brokerage agreement in writing but the plaintiff-appellant relies upon section 10 of the statute of frauds (1 Comp. Stat., p. 1453) as a basis for his right to recover. A judgment of nonsuit was directed in favor of the defendant Simon Miller, and at the close of the entire case a verdict was directed in favor of the remaining defendant, Pauline Miller, and a judgment against the plaintiff below entered thereon.

For reversal of such judgments various grounds are urged. ■ 1. Error in rulings excluding evidence.

We find no error in such action.

2. and 3. Error in nonsuiting as to Simon Miller and directing a verdict in favor of Pauline Miller.

We are unable, from the proofs, to find any merit in either of these grounds.

The judgments under review will be affirmed, with costs.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Appellant sued to recover the sum of $875 for brokerage commissions for the sale of premises 522-524-526 South Orange avenue, Newark. There was no brokerage agreement in writing but the plaintiff-appellant relies upon section 10 of the statute of frauds (1 Comp. Stat., p. 1453) as a basis for his right to recover. A judgment of nonsuit was directed in favor of the defendant Simon Miller, and at the close of the entire case a verdict was directed in favor of the remaining defendant, Pauline Miller, and a judgment against the plaintiff below entered thereon.

For reversal of such judgments various grounds are urged. ■ 1. Error in rulings excluding evidence.

We find no error in such action.

2. and 3. Error in nonsuiting as to Simon Miller and directing a verdict in favor of Pauline Miller.

We are unable, from the proofs, to find any merit in either of these grounds.

The judgments under review will be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A. 921, 8 N.J. Misc. 348, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-miller-nj-1930.