Simonson v. First National Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simonson v. First National Bank

231 A.D. 868

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 231 A.D. 868 (Simonson v. First National Bank) 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

Simonson v. First National Bank, 231 A.D. 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court of Nassau county reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The evidence demonstrates that plaintiffs, as brokers, were not the procuring cause of effecting the sale. They are not entitled to recover, “even though, to some extent, the seller might justly be said to have availed himself of the fruits of the broker’s labor.” (Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Company, 83 N. Y. 378.) The plaintiffs failed in their duty, as brokers, of bringing the seller and the buyer to terms. (Gallagher v. Dullea, 199 App. Div. 119.) That plaintiffs may have been the first to call the buyer’s attention to the property is of no importance. (Loewenthal v. Klein, 159 App. Div. 334.) Plaintiffs’ duty consisted “ not alone of directing the purchaser’s attention to the property, but of effecting the sale.” (Haase v. Ullman, 148 App. Div. 40.) In view of this decision, the appeal from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial is dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court of Nassau county reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The evidence demonstrates that plaintiffs, as brokers, were not the procuring cause of effecting the sale. They are not entitled to recover, “even though, to some extent, the seller might justly be said to have availed himself of the fruits of the broker’s labor.” (Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Company, 83 N. Y. 378.) The plaintiffs failed in their duty, as brokers, of bringing the seller and the buyer to terms. (Gallagher v. Dullea, 199 App. Div. 119.) That plaintiffs may have been the first to call the buyer’s attention to the property is of no importance. (Loewenthal v. Klein, 159 App. Div. 334.) Plaintiffs’ duty consisted “ not alone of directing the purchaser’s attention to the property, but of effecting the sale.” (Haase v. Ullman, 148 App. Div. 40.) In view of this decision, the appeal from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial is dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simonson-v-first-national-bank-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack