Schmidt v. Ungrich

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmidt v. Ungrich

143 N.Y.S. 1060

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 143 N.Y.S. 1060 (Schmidt v. Ungrich) 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

Schmidt v. Ungrich, 143 N.Y.S. 1060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

The action was brought to recover broker’s commissions at the rate of 1 per cent, upon a sale or exchange of real property, as well as of a mortgage thereon, for the amount of $136,000. The answer denied that plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. There was proof of an employment, and a sale, as well as of the activities of other brokers. The evidence as to who was the procuring cause of the sale was conflicting.

The court properly charged that plaintiff was entitled either to a full commission of 1 per cent, or to nothing. No other issue is raised by the pleadings, and plaintiff does not support his recovery on any other theory. But the court nowhere charged the jury that plaintiff could not recover unless he was the procuring cause of the sale, and it refused to charge that plaintiff must show that it was his services that induced the sale. Defendant excepted. The court also charged that the jury need not concern themselves with what a broker is compelled to do in order to earn his commissions. Defendant excepted. Unless a real estate broker is the procuring cause of sale, he earns no commission thereon. Phinney v. Chesebro, 87 App. Div. 409, 412, 84 N. Y. Supp. 449; Hamilton v. Gillender, 26 App. Div. 156, 157, 49 N. Y. Supp. 663.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

The action was brought to recover broker’s commissions at the rate of 1 per cent, upon a sale or exchange of real property, as well as of a mortgage thereon, for the amount of $136,000. The answer denied that plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. There was proof of an employment, and a sale, as well as of the activities of other brokers. The evidence as to who was the procuring cause of the sale was conflicting.

The court properly charged that plaintiff was entitled either to a full commission of 1 per cent, or to nothing. No other issue is raised by the pleadings, and plaintiff does not support his recovery on any other theory. But the court nowhere charged the jury that plaintiff could not recover unless he was the procuring cause of the sale, and it refused to charge that plaintiff must show that it was his services that induced the sale. Defendant excepted. The court also charged that the jury need not concern themselves with what a broker is compelled to do in order to earn his commissions. Defendant excepted. Unless a real estate broker is the procuring cause of sale, he earns no commission thereon. Phinney v. Chesebro, 87 App. Div. 409, 412, 84 N. Y. Supp. 449; Hamilton v. Gillender, 26 App. Div. 156, 157, 49 N. Y. Supp. 663.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 N.Y.S. 1060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-ungrich-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack