Homeyer v. Piel Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Homeyer v. Piel Bros.

240 A.D. 1004

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 1004 (Homeyer v. Piel Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Homeyer v. Piel Bros., 240 A.D. 1004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion of Henry G. Piel, individually and as trustee, to dismiss complaint as against him affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. The agreement upon which plaintiff relies did not involve any sale of personal property by the defendants to him. His agreement was to render services in procuring a purchaser of the brewery corporation, for which he was to be compensated by the defendants as alleged. This agreement he alleges he has performed. It is of no importance that the agreement between Siegel, the purchaser, and the defendants was oral and unenforcible. Plaintiff had performed his part of the agreement by producing a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase on defendants’ terms, andhe, therefore, earned the compensation promised. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion of Henry G. Piel, individually and as trustee, to dismiss complaint as against him affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. The agreement upon which plaintiff relies did not involve any sale of personal property by the defendants to him. His agreement was to render services in procuring a purchaser of the brewery corporation, for which he was to be compensated by the defendants as alleged. This agreement he alleges he has performed. It is of no importance that the agreement between Siegel, the purchaser, and the defendants was oral and unenforcible. Plaintiff had performed his part of the agreement by producing a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase on defendants’ terms, andhe, therefore, earned the compensation promised. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homeyer-v-piel-bros-nyappdiv-1933.