Flicker v. Ragan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Flicker v. Ragan

126 Misc. 185, 212 N.Y.S. 703, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 11, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 126 Misc. 185 (Flicker v. Ragan) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Misc. 185, 212 N.Y.S. 703, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flicker-v-ragan-nyappterm-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack