Doty v. Miller

43 Barb. 529, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 6, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 43 Barb. 529 (Doty v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doty v. Miller, 43 Barb. 529, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1865).

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

It would seem to follow from the decision of this court, in Glentworth v. Luther, (21 Barb. 145,) and of the common pleas in Holly v. Gos [530]*530ling, (3 E. D. Smith, 262,) that the offer to prove that Hitchcock did not complete the purchase, in consequence of there being prior incumbrances, and of a defect in the title, was improperly overruled. These cases are to the effect that a broker or agent who undertakes to sell property for another for a certain commission, if he finds a purchaser willing to purchase at the price, has earned and can recover his commission, though the sale never was completed, if the failure to complete the sale was in consequence of a defect of title, and without any fault of the broker or agent.

[New York General Term, February 6, 1865.

The evidence offered, then, in this case should have been received, for it went to show that it was’ not the fault of the plaintiff’s-assignor that the sale was not completed.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Ingraham, Clerke and Sutherland, Justices.]

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

Related

Freeman v. Creelman
212 P. 56 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
W. T. Craft Realty Co. v. Livernash
146 P. 121 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1914)
Reams v. . Wilson
60 S.E. 1124 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Egan v. Kieferdorf
16 Misc. 385 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Block v. Ryan
4 App. D.C. 283 (D.C. Circuit, 1894)
Jones v. Singer Manufacturing Co.
18 S.E. 478 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1893)
Scott v. Clark
54 N.W. 538 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Kyle v. Rippey
26 P. 308 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1891)
Lipski v. Peth
25 Abb. N. Cas. 206 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Peet v. Sherwood
45 N.W. 859 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1890)
Monroe v. Snow
23 N.E. 401 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Birmingham Land & Loan Co. v. Thompson
86 Ala. 146 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Buckingham v. Harris
10 Colo. 455 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1887)
Roberts v. Kimmons
65 Miss. 332 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1887)
Hamlin v. Schulte
27 N.W. 301 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1886)
Goodridge v. Holladay
18 Ill. App. 363 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1886)
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. Williams
98 Ind. 403 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Satterthwaite v. Vreeland
48 How. Pr. 508 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Barb. 529, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doty-v-miller-nysupct-1865.