Feist & Feist, Inc. v. Taub

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Feist & Feist, Inc. v. Taub

143 A. 335, 105 N.J.L. 237, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 333

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedOctober 15, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 143 A. 335 (Feist & Feist, Inc. v. Taub) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feist & Feist, Inc. v. Taub, 143 A. 335, 105 N.J.L. 237, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 333 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cuetam.

This suit was brought to recover a broker’s real estate commission. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,092.35. The agreement authorizing the plaintiff to sell the property Nos. 251-53-55 Belleville avenue, Newark, was in writing, dated September 20th, 1926. The agreement provided for an authorization to sell the property, $1,000 at signing and sealing the agreements of sale, “a commission of three and one-half on the first twenty thousand [$20,000] dollars of the purchase price, and two and one-half on the balance thereof.” The authorization null and void after September 22d, at six p. h., 1926.

*238 “I hereby agree to purchase property on terms hereby mentioned.

Signed Mabgueeite Spielman.”

The liability of the defendant is controlled by such cases as Hinds v. Henry, 36 N. J. L. 328, that case holds the right of a broker to commissions is complete when he has procured a purchaser, able and willing to conclude a bargain on the terms on which the broker was authorized to sell. Steinberg v. Mindlin, 96 N. J. L. 206.

The defendant filed ten grounds for a reversal of the judgment. These points are argued under five heads in the appellant’s brief. They are without merit as grounds of reversal. They call for no extended discussion. They all refer to trial errors; such as, error by the trial court is not directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; admitting in evidence a letter marked Exhibit P 4, dated September 27th, 1926; striking out the first separate defense of the defendant’s answer ; overruling two questions to a witness J. Leslie Stevens and three questions to the witness Margaret Spielman. These latter questions had been substantially answered. Overruling these questions was not error by the trial court.

Pinding no error in the record, the judgment of the Essex County Circuit Court is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Teenchaed, Pabkee, Mintubn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskibk, McGlennon, Kays, Hbtfield, Deae, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cuetam.

This suit was brought to recover a broker’s real estate commission. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,092.35. The agreement authorizing the plaintiff to sell the property Nos. 251-53-55 Belleville avenue, Newark, was in writing, dated September 20th, 1926. The agreement provided for an authorization to sell the property, $1,000 at signing and sealing the agreements of sale, “a commission of three and one-half on the first twenty thousand [$20,000] dollars of the purchase price, and two and one-half on the balance thereof.” The authorization null and void after September 22d, at six p. h., 1926.

*238 “I hereby agree to purchase property on terms hereby mentioned.

Signed Mabgueeite Spielman.”

The liability of the defendant is controlled by such cases as Hinds v. Henry, 36 N. J. L. 328, that case holds the right of a broker to commissions is complete when he has procured a purchaser, able and willing to conclude a bargain on the terms on which the broker was authorized to sell. Steinberg v. Mindlin, 96 N. J. L. 206.

The defendant filed ten grounds for a reversal of the judgment. These points are argued under five heads in the appellant’s brief. They are without merit as grounds of reversal. They call for no extended discussion. They all refer to trial errors; such as, error by the trial court is not directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; admitting in evidence a letter marked Exhibit P 4, dated September 27th, 1926; striking out the first separate defense of the defendant’s answer ; overruling two questions to a witness J. Leslie Stevens and three questions to the witness Margaret Spielman. These latter questions had been substantially answered. Overruling these questions was not error by the trial court.

Pinding no error in the record, the judgment of the Essex County Circuit Court is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Teenchaed, Pabkee, Mintubn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskibk, McGlennon, Kays, Hbtfield, Deae, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A. 335, 105 N.J.L. 237, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feist-feist-inc-v-taub-nj-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack