Bloomingdale v. Hodges

City of New York Municipal Court

Bloomingdale v. Hodges

20 Misc. 713, 45 N.Y.S. 1134

DecidedApril 15, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Misc. 713 (Bloomingdale v. Hodges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bloomingdale v. Hodges, 20 Misc. 713, 45 N.Y.S. 1134 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff’s firm 10' per cent, of the amount realized by them out of a certain contract to be made between them and one Proctor, providing the plaintiff’s firm procured such contract from Proctor.

Plaintiff performed his part of the agreement and now defendants claim that plaintiffs were the agents of Proctor, and, therefore, cannot recover herein.

There is no evidence even tending to show that plaintiff’s firm was Proctor’s agent, in fact the contrary is shown, and that in conducting the business in question he was solely and only defendants’ agent.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Van Wyok, Oh. J., Fitzsimons and McCarthy, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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