Seymour v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seymour v. Thompson

113 A.D. 651, 99 N.Y.S. 916, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1498

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D. 651 (Seymour v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seymour v. Thompson, 113 A.D. 651, 99 N.Y.S. 916, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodward, J.:

The plaintiff seeks to recover under the following. contract or agreement:

“ This contract made and entered into between A. C. Thompson and Charles Seymour for the sale of lot No. 15. * * , * It is understood and agreed that all over $250 dollars the said. A. C. Thompson gets for said lot, the half of the increase is to be divided with the said Chas. Seymour less expenses.

.“A. C. THOMPSON [seal].”

Just what was contemplated, by this agreement is not very clear, but it would seem to suggest that the plaintiff was to secure a purchaser, for the lot in question had been purchased by the defendant, and the plaintiff had been paid a commission by the vendor for procuring the purchaser. The evidence discloses that the lot, as it stood at the time of the agreement, was never sold. The defendant about a year later constructed a house upon the premises and finally sold the same for $3,200, taking in payment $500 in cash and an [652]*652agreement on the part of the purchaser to pay,$14 per month, with interest, until the. same was fully paid. It is claimed by the plain-tiff that, this transaction resulted in a profit of over $250 above the agreed price of the premises- and he seeks to recover one-half, of the profits. . It seems to us very doubtful if the plaintiff has any claim against the defendant, whose evidence indicates an actual loss in the transaction after paying expenses, but in- any event, in an action at law he was bound to show that the defendant had received for the. ■ lot more than $250,, and the evidence is undisputed that he lias received only $500 on -account, with three monthly installments of $14 each. By the terms of the contract, conceding it to .be valid, ■ the money is not yet due. Therefore the. judgment in favor of the defendant should be affirmed. ' .

Hirschberg, P. J., Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

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

Woodward, J.:

The plaintiff seeks to recover under the following. contract or agreement:

“ This contract made and entered into between A. C. Thompson and Charles Seymour for the sale of lot No. 15. * * , * It is understood and agreed that all over $250 dollars the said. A. C. Thompson gets for said lot, the half of the increase is to be divided with the said Chas. Seymour less expenses.

.“A. C. THOMPSON [seal].”

Just what was contemplated, by this agreement is not very clear, but it would seem to suggest that the plaintiff was to secure a purchaser, for the lot in question had been purchased by the defendant, and the plaintiff had been paid a commission by the vendor for procuring the purchaser. The evidence discloses that the lot, as it stood at the time of the agreement, was never sold. The defendant about a year later constructed a house upon the premises and finally sold the same for $3,200, taking in payment $500 in cash and an [652]*652agreement on the part of the purchaser to pay,$14 per month, with interest, until the. same was fully paid. It is claimed by the plain-tiff that, this transaction resulted in a profit of over $250 above the agreed price of the premises- and he seeks to recover one-half, of the profits. . It seems to us very doubtful if the plaintiff has any claim against the defendant, whose evidence indicates an actual loss in the transaction after paying expenses, but in- any event, in an action at law he was bound to show that the defendant had received for the. ■ lot more than $250,, and the evidence is undisputed that he lias received only $500 on -account, with three monthly installments of $14 each. By the terms of the contract, conceding it to .be valid, ■ the money is not yet due. Therefore the. judgment in favor of the defendant should be affirmed. ' .

Hirschberg, P. J., Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D. 651, 99 N.Y.S. 916, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seymour-v-thompson-nyappdiv-1906.