North Sea Developments, Inc. v. Burnett

173 N.E. 228, 254 N.Y. 374, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1055
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 1930·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record presents a question of fact whether before the broker had earned any commissions he agreed that his compensation should be five per cent on payments as made on the contract and five per cent on the amount of the mortgage when title passes. Title to the property has never passed and the broker has received five per cent commissions on all payments made.

The bid made at the judicial sale was not a payment made under the contract.

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Special Term should be reversed and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division and ten dollars costs of motion.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Crane, J., not sitting.

Judgment accordingly.

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

North Sea Developments, Inc. v. Burnett, 173 N.E. 228, 254 N.Y. 374, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1055 (N.Y. 1930).

173 N.E. 228 (North Sea Developments, Inc. v. Burnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dallas Dome Wyoming Oil Fields Co. v. Brooder
97 P.2d 311 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1939)
Wheeler v. C. H. S. Holding Corp.
243 A.D. 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
Amies v. Wesnofske
174 N.E. 436 (New York Court of Appeals, 1931)