Levy v. Cohen

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. Cohen

27 Misc. 776, 57 N.Y.S. 1141

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Misc. 776 (Levy v. Cohen) 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

Levy v. Cohen, 27 Misc. 776, 57 N.Y.S. 1141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, P. J.

According to the facts as we must assume the justice found them, the plaintiffs were promised compensation' in case they; as brokers, brought to the' defendant a purchaser will ing and able to purchase defendant’s premises upon terms to bJ thereafter agreed upon between such purchaser and the defendant The plaintiffs did introduce a prospective purchaser, but' such prrchaser and the defendant could not agree upon the terms aid their minds never met.' The plaintiffs, therefore, never earnid their commission. There was sufficient evidence upon which ¡he justice could find as here stated, and upon this ground the jiflg-. ment should be affirmed. That being so, the result is the sane, whether the written promise of the plaintiffs to wait for the jayment of their commission until the title should be passed be treated-as part of thé original contract as claimed by the deihd- ■ ant, or as a promise by the plaintiffs without consideration because made subsequent to their contract with the defendant. /

Judgment should be affirmed.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

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

Freedman, P. J.

According to the facts as we must assume the justice found them, the plaintiffs were promised compensation' in case they; as brokers, brought to the' defendant a purchaser will ing and able to purchase defendant’s premises upon terms to bJ thereafter agreed upon between such purchaser and the defendant The plaintiffs did introduce a prospective purchaser, but' such prrchaser and the defendant could not agree upon the terms aid their minds never met.' The plaintiffs, therefore, never earnid their commission. There was sufficient evidence upon which ¡he justice could find as here stated, and upon this ground the jiflg-. ment should be affirmed. That being so, the result is the sane, whether the written promise of the plaintiffs to wait for the jayment of their commission until the title should be passed be treated-as part of thé original contract as claimed by the deihd- ■ ant, or as a promise by the plaintiffs without consideration because made subsequent to their contract with the defendant. /

Judgment should be affirmed.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 776, 57 N.Y.S. 1141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-cohen-nyappterm-1899.