Hattenbach v. Gundersheimer

New York Court of Common Pleas

Hattenbach v. Gundersheimer

13 N.Y.S. 814, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 509, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1693

DecidedApril 6, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 814 (Hattenbach v. Gundersheimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hattenbach v. Gundersheimer, 13 N.Y.S. 814, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 509, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1693 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Pryor, J.

The action is by the broker against the seller to recover a commission “of — per cent, of the selling price, if he sells my bakery, or sends a party that does buy it.” Such, in terms, was the written stipulation of the defendant. The plaintiff produced a purchaser, who did buy, and to whom the defendant did sell, the bakery. The defendant signed the contract of sale, and accepted $100 in part payment, but afterwards refused to carry out the sale, unless the buyer would secure the lease on the premises. This was not a term of the contract, and by insisting on it the defendant was the cause of the miscarriage of the negotiations; but the plaintiff had already fulfilled his engagement by presenting a purchaser who did buy, and to whom defendant did sell, by an agreement obligatory on both parties. It was then too late for defendant to escape liability to plaintiff for his commissions. Geoghegan v. Kelly, 11 N. Y. Supp. 704. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Pryor, J.

The action is by the broker against the seller to recover a commission “of — per cent, of the selling price, if he sells my bakery, or sends a party that does buy it.” Such, in terms, was the written stipulation of the defendant. The plaintiff produced a purchaser, who did buy, and to whom the defendant did sell, the bakery. The defendant signed the contract of sale, and accepted $100 in part payment, but afterwards refused to carry out the sale, unless the buyer would secure the lease on the premises. This was not a term of the contract, and by insisting on it the defendant was the cause of the miscarriage of the negotiations; but the plaintiff had already fulfilled his engagement by presenting a purchaser who did buy, and to whom defendant did sell, by an agreement obligatory on both parties. It was then too late for defendant to escape liability to plaintiff for his commissions. Geoghegan v. Kelly, 11 N. Y. Supp. 704. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 814, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 509, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hattenbach-v-gundersheimer-nyctcompl-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack