Illich v. Liebers

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Illich v. Liebers

127 Misc. 148, 215 N.Y.S. 384, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 938

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 Misc. 148 (Illich v. Liebers) 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

Illich v. Liebers, 127 Misc. 148, 215 N.Y.S. 384, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the issue whether plaintiff, broker, at defendant’s request procured the purchaser, who thereafter entered into a written contract with the defendant for the purchase of the premises, plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The facts testified to by plaintiff indicated an agreement on the part of the defendant to pay plaintiff for commission so much' of the purchase price as exceeded $9,500, and although plaintiff’s understanding of his contract, as distinguished from the contract evidenced by the facts testified to, seems inconsistent with such facts and the claim specified in the bill of particulars, such inconsistency, while a proper subject of consideration by the jury, does not as matter of law destroy the plaintiff’s prima facie case. (Ochs v. Woods, 221 N. Y. 335; Mussen v. White, 16 N. Y. Supp. 951; Stocking v. Seed Filter & Mfg. Co., 155 id. 195; Nicolls v. Lyons, 144 id. 19; Cohen v. Levy, 77 Misc. 98.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

On the issue whether plaintiff, broker, at defendant’s request procured the purchaser, who thereafter entered into a written contract with the defendant for the purchase of the premises, plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The facts testified to by plaintiff indicated an agreement on the part of the defendant to pay plaintiff for commission so much' of the purchase price as exceeded $9,500, and although plaintiff’s understanding of his contract, as distinguished from the contract evidenced by the facts testified to, seems inconsistent with such facts and the claim specified in the bill of particulars, such inconsistency, while a proper subject of consideration by the jury, does not as matter of law destroy the plaintiff’s prima facie case. (Ochs v. Woods, 221 N. Y. 335; Mussen v. White, 16 N. Y. Supp. 951; Stocking v. Seed Filter & Mfg. Co., 155 id. 195; Nicolls v. Lyons, 144 id. 19; Cohen v. Levy, 77 Misc. 98.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 148, 215 N.Y.S. 384, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illich-v-liebers-nyappterm-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack