Stackell v. Hayes

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stackell v. Hayes

137 N.Y.S. 854

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 8, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 137 N.Y.S. 854 (Stackell v. Hayes) 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

Stackell v. Hayes, 137 N.Y.S. 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover broker’s commissions for services in bringing about an agreement to exchange real property of defendants for real property belonging to one Levine, another customer of plaintiff.

One of the defenses set up in the answer is that Levine did not have a good title to the property, which he agreed to exchange for that of the defendants, and was, therefore, not ready, able, and willing to convey. Defendants offered evidence in support of this allegation of the answer, which evidence was excluded under defendants’ exception. The ability or inability of the proposed purchaser to convey -a good title is a material issue in an action of this character (Norman v. Reuther, 25 Misc. Rep. 161, 163, 54 N. Y. Supp. 152; Wiley v. Kraslow Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 706, 708, 126 N. Y. Supp. 879), and the exclusion of such evidence was reversible error.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover broker’s commissions for services in bringing about an agreement to exchange real property of defendants for real property belonging to one Levine, another customer of plaintiff.

One of the defenses set up in the answer is that Levine did not have a good title to the property, which he agreed to exchange for that of the defendants, and was, therefore, not ready, able, and willing to convey. Defendants offered evidence in support of this allegation of the answer, which evidence was excluded under defendants’ exception. The ability or inability of the proposed purchaser to convey -a good title is a material issue in an action of this character (Norman v. Reuther, 25 Misc. Rep. 161, 163, 54 N. Y. Supp. 152; Wiley v. Kraslow Construction Co., 141 App. Div. 706, 708, 126 N. Y. Supp. 879), and the exclusion of such evidence was reversible error.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 N.Y.S. 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stackell-v-hayes-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack