Frank J. Bloom Co. v. Kuemmerle

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Frank J. Bloom Co. v. Kuemmerle

139 A. 46, 5 N.J. Misc. 965, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 74

DecidedOctober 27, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A. 46 (Frank J. Bloom Co. v. Kuemmerle) 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

Frank J. Bloom Co. v. Kuemmerle, 139 A. 46, 5 N.J. Misc. 965, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 74 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover the sum of $1,600 commissions alleged to be due for procuring a loan in the sum of $50,000 to be used to take an assignment of a mortgage, then held against the property of the defendants, and a further sum of $150 interest on the $50,000 and interest on the sum of $1,600.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,836.12. The defendant appealed and filed seven grounds of appeal, only two of which are argued in the appellants’ brief, viz., the sixth and seventh. We find no error, except in the amount of damages. There is nothing in the case to show that the plaintiff was under any legal obligation to pay the lender the interest sued for. Nor is there anything to show that the defendants agreed to pay interest by way of damages for a breach of their agreement to accept the loan of $50,000. But as we find the only question with respect [966]*966to which the verdict is wrong is the amount of the verdict, which is senarable, the jury having settled the question of liability upon sufficient evidence, the judgment will be affirmed for $1,600 under the case of Robinson v. Payne, 99 N-. J. L. 135.

The judgment of the Atlantic County Circuit Court will be affirmed for $1,600.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover the sum of $1,600 commissions alleged to be due for procuring a loan in the sum of $50,000 to be used to take an assignment of a mortgage, then held against the property of the defendants, and a further sum of $150 interest on the $50,000 and interest on the sum of $1,600.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,836.12. The defendant appealed and filed seven grounds of appeal, only two of which are argued in the appellants’ brief, viz., the sixth and seventh. We find no error, except in the amount of damages. There is nothing in the case to show that the plaintiff was under any legal obligation to pay the lender the interest sued for. Nor is there anything to show that the defendants agreed to pay interest by way of damages for a breach of their agreement to accept the loan of $50,000. But as we find the only question with respect [966]*966to which the verdict is wrong is the amount of the verdict, which is senarable, the jury having settled the question of liability upon sufficient evidence, the judgment will be affirmed for $1,600 under the case of Robinson v. Payne, 99 N-. J. L. 135.

The judgment of the Atlantic County Circuit Court will be affirmed for $1,600.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A. 46, 5 N.J. Misc. 965, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-j-bloom-co-v-kuemmerle-nj-1927.