Brunjes v. Maiden
This text of 153 Misc. 645 (Brunjes v. Maiden) 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.
Opinion
Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and motion for summary judgment denied.
Plaintiff’s papers do not comply with the provisions of rule 113. Furthermore, defendant’s papers show that he made no agreement with the plaintiff and that Martin, whom defendant had authorized to procure the loan, was merely a real estate broker. As such, Martin had no authority to employ the plaintiff (Southack v. Ireland, 109 App. Div. 45; Carroll v. Tucker, 2 Misc. 397) and the latter has no claim against the defendant. No opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
153 Misc. 645, 275 N.Y.S. 112, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunjes-v-maiden-nyappterm-1934.