Brown v. Grassman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Grassman

65 N.Y.S. 1126, 53 A.D. 640

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 17, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 N.Y.S. 1126 (Brown v. Grassman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Grassman, 65 N.Y.S. 1126, 53 A.D. 640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

JENKS, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of a municipal court in favor of plaintiff for a broker’s commission. Through the offices of plaintiff, the defendant, after examination of a certain parcel of land, executed a contract with a third party to exchange his realty for the said parcel. The defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff a) broker’s commission of $50. The defendant refused to execute the contract for the reason that a frame house on adjacent premises sagged over the lot. There is no contention that the plaintiff assumed “to execute the executory contract of exchange,” or that his commissions were dependent upon execution. Therefore the case is within the principle of Knapp v. Wallace, 41 N. Y. 477; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1, 29 N. E. 1091; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504, 33 N. E. 599, 20 L. R. A. 398. Diamond Co. v. Hartley (Sup.) 55 N. Y. Supp. 994, cited by the appellant, does not apply, for there the court determined that there was an entire absence of evidence that the parties to the transaction ever reached an agreement. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

JENKS, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of a municipal court in favor of plaintiff for a broker’s commission. Through the offices of plaintiff, the defendant, after examination of a certain parcel of land, executed a contract with a third party to exchange his realty for the said parcel. The defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff a) broker’s commission of $50. The defendant refused to execute the contract for the reason that a frame house on adjacent premises sagged over the lot. There is no contention that the plaintiff assumed “to execute the executory contract of exchange,” or that his commissions were dependent upon execution. Therefore the case is within the principle of Knapp v. Wallace, 41 N. Y. 477; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1, 29 N. E. 1091; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504, 33 N. E. 599, 20 L. R. A. 398. Diamond Co. v. Hartley (Sup.) 55 N. Y. Supp. 994, cited by the appellant, does not apply, for there the court determined that there was an entire absence of evidence that the parties to the transaction ever reached an agreement. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.Y.S. 1126, 53 A.D. 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-grassman-nyappdiv-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack