Boyle v. Van Tassel

New York Court of Common Pleas

Boyle v. Van Tassel

10 N.Y.S. 321, 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 284, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2096

DecidedJune 2, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 321 (Boyle v. Van Tassel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyle v. Van Tassel, 10 N.Y.S. 321, 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 284, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2096 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Larremorb, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in plaintiff’s favor for commissions as a broker or dealer in machinery. It is shown by the evidence that the plaintiff brought a customer who bought the boiler in question, for which the defendant received $800. Plaintiff testified that the defendant, through his manager, Hillhouse, agreed that, if plaintiff found a purchaser for the boiler, he would pay him 10 per cent, of the purchase price. The sale was consummated, and, for a refusal on the part of the defendant to pay such commission, this action was brought.

The main question in this case is one of fact, as to the authority of Hill-house to bind the defendant. It is a well-settled question of practice that an appellate court will not disturb a judgment rendered upon disputed facts. The court below has found, upon the whole testimony, that the agreement was made, plaintiff did act in good faith, procured a customer, and defendant got the fruits of his labor, and that the agency was established. Leslie v. Insurance Co., 63 N. Y. 27; Dunn v. Insurance Co., 19 Wkly. Dig. 531; Warburton v. Camp, 112 N. Y. 683, 20 N. E. Rep. 592; Mayer v. Dean, 115 N. Y. 556, 22 N. E. Rep. 261. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Larremorb, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in plaintiff’s favor for commissions as a broker or dealer in machinery. It is shown by the evidence that the plaintiff brought a customer who bought the boiler in question, for which the defendant received $800. Plaintiff testified that the defendant, through his manager, Hillhouse, agreed that, if plaintiff found a purchaser for the boiler, he would pay him 10 per cent, of the purchase price. The sale was consummated, and, for a refusal on the part of the defendant to pay such commission, this action was brought.

The main question in this case is one of fact, as to the authority of Hill-house to bind the defendant. It is a well-settled question of practice that an appellate court will not disturb a judgment rendered upon disputed facts. The court below has found, upon the whole testimony, that the agreement was made, plaintiff did act in good faith, procured a customer, and defendant got the fruits of his labor, and that the agency was established. Leslie v. Insurance Co., 63 N. Y. 27; Dunn v. Insurance Co., 19 Wkly. Dig. 531; Warburton v. Camp, 112 N. Y. 683, 20 N. E. Rep. 592; Mayer v. Dean, 115 N. Y. 556, 22 N. E. Rep. 261. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.S. 321, 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 284, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyle-v-van-tassel-nyctcompl-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack