Ransom v. Wheelwright

City of New York Municipal Court

Ransom v. Wheelwright

16 Misc. 682, 37 N.Y.S. 1022, 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 514

DecidedMarch 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Misc. 682 (Ransom v. Wheelwright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ransom v. Wheelwright, 16 Misc. 682, 37 N.Y.S. 1022, 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 514 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Fitzsimons, J.

The jury evidently believed. that the contract which expired April 28, 1891, was renewed in accordance with the terms expressed in ; defendant’s .letter to plaintiff dated April 11, 1891, except that it'expired' only after sixty-days’notice to terminate the same had' been given by- either plaintiff- or defendants. They also believed that he was the person who procured the Drabble Bros, to purchase goods' from the defendants' .to the extent of $60,000, which entitled him to the verdict .rendered. • •.

There is ample testimony.to sustain these beliefs of the jury, and besides we think the record shows that the plaintiff was.equitably entitled to the commission on -. the sales made by def endant to said' firm of ¡Drabble Brothers, because they never were customers of defendant’s firm until after their, orders were solicited by . the plaintiff. We find no error in the printed record and the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

O’Dwyeb and Conlan, JJ.y concur.

' Judgment, affirmed, ■ with costs.

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

Fitzsimons, J.

The jury evidently believed. that the contract which expired April 28, 1891, was renewed in accordance with the terms expressed in ; defendant’s .letter to plaintiff dated April 11, 1891, except that it'expired' only after sixty-days’notice to terminate the same had' been given by- either plaintiff- or defendants. They also believed that he was the person who procured the Drabble Bros, to purchase goods' from the defendants' .to the extent of $60,000, which entitled him to the verdict .rendered. • •.

There is ample testimony.to sustain these beliefs of the jury, and besides we think the record shows that the plaintiff was.equitably entitled to the commission on -. the sales made by def endant to said' firm of ¡Drabble Brothers, because they never were customers of defendant’s firm until after their, orders were solicited by . the plaintiff. We find no error in the printed record and the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

O’Dwyeb and Conlan, JJ.y concur.

' Judgment, affirmed, ■ with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Misc. 682, 37 N.Y.S. 1022, 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ransom-v-wheelwright-nynyccityct-1896.