Mahlenbrock v. Stonehell Realty Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mahlenbrock v. Stonehell Realty Co.

138 A. 875, 104 N.J.L. 176, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 313

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedOctober 17, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A. 875 (Mahlenbrock v. Stonehell Realty Co.) 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

Mahlenbrock v. Stonehell Realty Co., 138 A. 875, 104 N.J.L. 176, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 313 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover the sum of $1,750, with interest, commissions alleged to be due, as a real estate broker. The broker’s commission was provided for in the contract for the sale of the real estate dated March 17th, 1924. The clause in the contract was: “Harry Mahlenbrock [the plaintiff] was the agent who consummated this sale and that there is due him a commission of $1,750, payable at the conveyance of the premises.”

The ease was tried by Judge Ackerson and a jury resulting in a directed verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals and files eight grounds of appeal, viz.: First and second, a refusal by the trial court to nonsuit the plaintiff or to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. These rulings of the trial court call for no discussion, as the exceptions are without legal merit. Third,-error by the trial court in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth, error in overruling a series of questions propounded by the defendant’s counsel to a witness, George Scheetz, Jr., tending to vary the terms of the written contract. The ruling of the trial court on these questions was not error under the case of Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331. This point was considered by this court at the present May term in the case of Yentis v. Townsend, ante, p. 109. The conveyance failed because of a defective title. The broker’s commission was not made contingent upon the actual transfer of title.

*177 The ruling of the trial court in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not error under the principle applied by the trial court to the facts of the case and as illustrated in such cases as Haber v. Goldberg, 92 N. J. L. 367; Klipper v. Schlossberg, 96 Id. 397; Dubrow v. Hornstra, 95 Id. 288; Dickinson v. Walters, 100 Id. 62; Ludwig v. Aberbach, 132 Atl. Rep. 241; Kislak v. Judge, 102 N. J. L. 506.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Parker, Minturn, Kalisgh, Black, Katzekbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yak Buskirk, McGueknok, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 14.

For reversal — ISTone.

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 $1,750, with interest, commissions alleged to be due, as a real estate broker. The broker’s commission was provided for in the contract for the sale of the real estate dated March 17th, 1924. The clause in the contract was: “Harry Mahlenbrock [the plaintiff] was the agent who consummated this sale and that there is due him a commission of $1,750, payable at the conveyance of the premises.”

The ease was tried by Judge Ackerson and a jury resulting in a directed verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals and files eight grounds of appeal, viz.: First and second, a refusal by the trial court to nonsuit the plaintiff or to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. These rulings of the trial court call for no discussion, as the exceptions are without legal merit. Third,-error by the trial court in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth, error in overruling a series of questions propounded by the defendant’s counsel to a witness, George Scheetz, Jr., tending to vary the terms of the written contract. The ruling of the trial court on these questions was not error under the case of Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331. This point was considered by this court at the present May term in the case of Yentis v. Townsend, ante, p. 109. The conveyance failed because of a defective title. The broker’s commission was not made contingent upon the actual transfer of title.

*177 The ruling of the trial court in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not error under the principle applied by the trial court to the facts of the case and as illustrated in such cases as Haber v. Goldberg, 92 N. J. L. 367; Klipper v. Schlossberg, 96 Id. 397; Dubrow v. Hornstra, 95 Id. 288; Dickinson v. Walters, 100 Id. 62; Ludwig v. Aberbach, 132 Atl. Rep. 241; Kislak v. Judge, 102 N. J. L. 506.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Parker, Minturn, Kalisgh, Black, Katzekbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yak Buskirk, McGueknok, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 14.

For reversal — ISTone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 875, 104 N.J.L. 176, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahlenbrock-v-stonehell-realty-co-nj-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack