Burke v. Pfeffer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. Pfeffer

34 Misc. 774, 68 N.Y.S. 799

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Misc. 774 (Burke v. Pfeffer) 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.

Bluebook

Burke v. Pfeffer, 34 Misc. 774, 68 N.Y.S. 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Gorman, J.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, who is a real estate broker, submitted an offer of $12,000 to the defendant, and that the latter, on the following day, in the absence of the plaintiff, sold the property for the same price to a person, whom the plaintiff claims was his customer. The plaintiff, however, failed to establish that the sale was effected through his agency, as its procuring cause, or that he was the means of bringing the parties together, or that his efforts were instrumental in producing the sale. Whether the defendant had prior negotiations with the same person is not disclosed by the record. On the meagre testimony adduced, too much is left to conjecture. The complaint was properly dismissed and the judgment should be affirmed.

Andrews, P. J., and Blanchard, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

O’Gorman, J.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, who is a real estate broker, submitted an offer of $12,000 to the defendant, and that the latter, on the following day, in the absence of the plaintiff, sold the property for the same price to a person, whom the plaintiff claims was his customer. The plaintiff, however, failed to establish that the sale was effected through his agency, as its procuring cause, or that he was the means of bringing the parties together, or that his efforts were instrumental in producing the sale. Whether the defendant had prior negotiations with the same person is not disclosed by the record. On the meagre testimony adduced, too much is left to conjecture. The complaint was properly dismissed and the judgment should be affirmed.

Andrews, P. J., and Blanchard, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 774, 68 N.Y.S. 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-pfeffer-nyappterm-1901.