Clancy v. Tansley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clancy v. Tansley

285 A.D. 1016, 139 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6505

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1016 (Clancy v. Tansley) 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

Clancy v. Tansley, 285 A.D. 1016, 139 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed, on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The plaintiff seeks a recovery for real estate commissions to which she claims she is entitled by virtue of a contract between the parties. The contract specified by its terms that the listing was under the “ Multiple Listing Service Plan ” of the Real Estate Board of Rochester, Inc. It was error, therefore, to exclude the rules governing such plan offered in evidence by the plaintiff. (Bibb V. Allen, 149 U. S. 481, 489; Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U. S. 461, 481; Gettys V. Newburger, 272 F. 209, 215; Crowley v. Commodity Exch., 141 F. 2d 182, 188; Kent V. De Coppet, 149 App. Div. 589, 592.) The claim of the defendant, too, that there was a rescission of the contract, prior to the sale made of the property, and within,the period of the contract and its “extended period”, was mutually cancelled or abandoned, is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Ctiurt who found for defendant for no cause of action in an action to recover real estate commissions.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed, on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The plaintiff seeks a recovery for real estate commissions to which she claims she is entitled by virtue of a contract between the parties. The contract specified by its terms that the listing was under the “ Multiple Listing Service Plan ” of the Real Estate Board of Rochester, Inc. It was error, therefore, to exclude the rules governing such plan offered in evidence by the plaintiff. (Bibb V. Allen, 149 U. S. 481, 489; Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U. S. 461, 481; Gettys V. Newburger, 272 F. 209, 215; Crowley v. Commodity Exch., 141 F. 2d 182, 188; Kent V. De Coppet, 149 App. Div. 589, 592.) The claim of the defendant, too, that there was a rescission of the contract, prior to the sale made of the property, and within,the period of the contract and its “extended period”, was mutually cancelled or abandoned, is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Ctiurt who found for defendant for no cause of action in an action to recover real estate commissions.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1016, 139 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clancy-v-tansley-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack