Flicker v. Ragan

126 Misc. 185, 212 N.Y.S. 703, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 11, 1925·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The dismissal of the complaint was erroneous. The rule that a broker, in order to earn his commission, must produce a purchaser who is financially able does not apply where an enforcible agreement has been entered into for the purchase of the property. The seller is deemed to have indicated his satisfaction with such purchaser’s financial ability by executing the contract. (Corbin v. Mechanics & Traders’ Bank, 121 App. Div. 744; Alt v. Doscher, 102 id. 344; Slocum v. Ostrander, 141 id, 380; affd., 205 N. Y. 617; Jaffe v. Lederer, 113 Misc. 356.) The judgment is, therefore, reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Churchill, JJ.

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

Flicker v. Ragan, 126 Misc. 185, 212 N.Y.S. 703, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

126 Misc. 185 (Flicker v. Ragan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slocum v. . Ostrander
98 N.E. 1115 (New York Court of Appeals, 1912)
Corbin v. Mechanics & Traders' Bank
121 A.D. 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
Jaffe v. Lederer
113 Misc. 356 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)