Oscar D. & Herbert V. Dike v. Haight

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Oscar D. & Herbert V. Dike v. Haight

108 N.Y.S. 1066

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 108 N.Y.S. 1066 (Oscar D. & Herbert V. Dike v. Haight) 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

Oscar D. & Herbert V. Dike v. Haight, 108 N.Y.S. 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinions

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff earned its commissions, as broker, when the contract, of sale was signed; and the justice properly determined that this corporation was the procuring cause of the sale. The [1067]*1067defendant’s self-serving declaration that the payment of commissions was to await the delivery of the deed had, of course, no effect upon the actual agreement under which the broker was employed, for the purposes of the issue between these parties; but the admission of the fact that this broker did procure the sale, as expressed in the contract between vendor and purchaser, was evidence for the plaintiff. Whether the defendant might have established a defense of deceit in the procurement of his acceptance of the purchaser is not a question before us, since no such issue was presented to the court below.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., concurs.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff earned its commissions, as broker, when the contract, of sale was signed; and the justice properly determined that this corporation was the procuring cause of the sale. The [1067]*1067defendant’s self-serving declaration that the payment of commissions was to await the delivery of the deed had, of course, no effect upon the actual agreement under which the broker was employed, for the purposes of the issue between these parties; but the admission of the fact that this broker did procure the sale, as expressed in the contract between vendor and purchaser, was evidence for the plaintiff. Whether the defendant might have established a defense of deceit in the procurement of his acceptance of the purchaser is not a question before us, since no such issue was presented to the court below.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.Y.S. 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-d-herbert-v-dike-v-haight-nyappterm-1908.