Folsom v. Lewis

City of New York Municipal Court

Folsom v. Lewis

33 N.Y.S. 1127, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 868

DecidedApril 9, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.Y.S. 1127 (Folsom v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Folsom v. Lewis, 33 N.Y.S. 1127, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 868 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

EHRLICH, C. J.

The plaintiffs proved that they, as real-estate brokers, were employed by the defendant to find a purchaser for the house No. 146 East Sixty-First street, this city, at the price of $29,000; that they found a person willing to buy on these terms, and that the parties were brought together through the instrumentality of the plaintiffs. The brokerage on such transactions is conceded to be 1 per cent, of the purchase money, making $290, the amount of the verdict, exclusive of interest. The proofs^ also show that the failure to complete was owing to the inability on the part of the defendant. It was claimed by him that infants were interested in the property, and that they could [1128]*1128not give title without an order of the court. But on'e of the plaintiffs testified that there was no such condition attached to the employment, and that the defendant had told him that this had been provided for. We think the plaintiff established sufficient to go to the jury, that the questions involved were fairly submitted to them, and that their finding thereon is sustained by the evidence. It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

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

EHRLICH, C. J.

The plaintiffs proved that they, as real-estate brokers, were employed by the defendant to find a purchaser for the house No. 146 East Sixty-First street, this city, at the price of $29,000; that they found a person willing to buy on these terms, and that the parties were brought together through the instrumentality of the plaintiffs. The brokerage on such transactions is conceded to be 1 per cent, of the purchase money, making $290, the amount of the verdict, exclusive of interest. The proofs^ also show that the failure to complete was owing to the inability on the part of the defendant. It was claimed by him that infants were interested in the property, and that they could [1128]*1128not give title without an order of the court. But on'e of the plaintiffs testified that there was no such condition attached to the employment, and that the defendant had told him that this had been provided for. We think the plaintiff established sufficient to go to the jury, that the questions involved were fairly submitted to them, and that their finding thereon is sustained by the evidence. It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.Y.S. 1127, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folsom-v-lewis-nynyccityct-1895.