Richtberg v. Carlton

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Richtberg v. Carlton

58 Misc. 186, 108 N.Y.S. 1067

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 58 Misc. 186 (Richtberg v. Carlton) 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

Richtberg v. Carlton, 58 Misc. 186, 108 N.Y.S. 1067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

In view of the testimony of the plaintiff in this action to recover for services, claimed to have been rendered, upon request, to the defendant, and as the procuring cause of a leasing by the defendant to one Dempsey of certain premises, it is quite immaterial whether he did or did not effect the leasing, because, on his own showing, he was at one nonce trying to play inconsistent roles, secretly to serve with fairness two employers whose respective interests were irreconcilable, the one’s to hire on the lowest possible terms, and the other’s to lease * for the best obtainable price; for he testified that he was looking for commissions from both parties; that he was trying to serve both, trying to get the most he could for the lessor and to- get the lessor down as he could for the lessee, and that he never told the defendant that he was representing the lessee.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Bischoee, J., concurs; Gildersleeve, J., concurs in result.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

MacLean, J.

In view of the testimony of the plaintiff in this action to recover for services, claimed to have been rendered, upon request, to the defendant, and as the procuring cause of a leasing by the defendant to one Dempsey of certain premises, it is quite immaterial whether he did or did not effect the leasing, because, on his own showing, he was at one nonce trying to play inconsistent roles, secretly to serve with fairness two employers whose respective interests were irreconcilable, the one’s to hire on the lowest possible terms, and the other’s to lease * for the best obtainable price; for he testified that he was looking for commissions from both parties; that he was trying to serve both, trying to get the most he could for the lessor and to- get the lessor down as he could for the lessee, and that he never told the defendant that he was representing the lessee.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Bischoee, J., concurs; Gildersleeve, J., concurs in result.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Misc. 186, 108 N.Y.S. 1067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richtberg-v-carlton-nyappterm-1908.