Peck v. Antes

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Peck v. Antes

84 N.Y.S. 252

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 252 (Peck v. Antes) 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

Peck v. Antes, 84 N.Y.S. 252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as a real estate broker, to recover the sum of $249 as his commission as a broker on the sale of the premises known as No. 498 Ninth avenue,, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, to one Mrs. Helena Lindemann, on or about the 3d day of May, 1902. The plaintiff in this case, having shown no written authority from the defendant to‘ offer her property for sale, cannot recover commissions from the defendant. Whiteleley v. Terry (Sup.) 82 N. Y. Supp. 89. The defendant brought this question to the attention of the court by his motion to dismiss upon the ground that “no contract that was binding upon the purchaser had ever been produced,” and an action cannot lie to. recover compensation for doing an act which the statute declares to be a misdemeanor. Moreover, an examination of the whole case shows an entire failure on the part of the plaintiff to maintain the burden of proof cast upon him of proving his employment by the defendant.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as a real estate broker, to recover the sum of $249 as his commission as a broker on the sale of the premises known as No. 498 Ninth avenue,, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, to one Mrs. Helena Lindemann, on or about the 3d day of May, 1902. The plaintiff in this case, having shown no written authority from the defendant to‘ offer her property for sale, cannot recover commissions from the defendant. Whiteleley v. Terry (Sup.) 82 N. Y. Supp. 89. The defendant brought this question to the attention of the court by his motion to dismiss upon the ground that “no contract that was binding upon the purchaser had ever been produced,” and an action cannot lie to. recover compensation for doing an act which the statute declares to be a misdemeanor. Moreover, an examination of the whole case shows an entire failure on the part of the plaintiff to maintain the burden of proof cast upon him of proving his employment by the defendant.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-antes-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack