State v. Daly

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Daly

29 A. 169, 56 N.J.L. 466, 27 Vroom 466, 1894 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 75

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 15, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A. 169 (State v. Daly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Daly, 29 A. 169, 56 N.J.L. 466, 27 Vroom 466, 1894 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 75 (N.J. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

We think that this case is not within the statute» The plaintiff below did not sue to recover a commission for the sale or exchange of any real estate, nor was the defendant’s agreement, on which the suit rested, one to pay him for such a service. What the plaintiff had done under the defendant’s employment was to advertise the property for sale at auction and to secure the services of an auctioneer. Although,, according to the original bargain, his right to compensation for this service might depend upon the sale of the property by the auctioneer, yet there was implied in the bargain an understanding that the defendant would not prevent such a sale; and when she did prevent it by her private sale of the property, the plaintiff became entitled to damages for the breach of this implied obligation. It was then perfectly legitimate for the parties to liquidate those damages, and, according to the statement of facts, they did so by the defendant’s agreement to pay the plaintiff two per cent, of the price realized at the private sale. An agreement of this nature differs essentially from those contemplated by the statute upon which brokers or real estate agents base claims to commissions for the sale or exchange of lands.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

We think that this case is not within the statute» The plaintiff below did not sue to recover a commission for the sale or exchange of any real estate, nor was the defendant’s agreement, on which the suit rested, one to pay him for such a service. What the plaintiff had done under the defendant’s employment was to advertise the property for sale at auction and to secure the services of an auctioneer. Although,, according to the original bargain, his right to compensation for this service might depend upon the sale of the property by the auctioneer, yet there was implied in the bargain an understanding that the defendant would not prevent such a sale; and when she did prevent it by her private sale of the property, the plaintiff became entitled to damages for the breach of this implied obligation. It was then perfectly legitimate for the parties to liquidate those damages, and, according to the statement of facts, they did so by the defendant’s agreement to pay the plaintiff two per cent, of the price realized at the private sale. An agreement of this nature differs essentially from those contemplated by the statute upon which brokers or real estate agents base claims to commissions for the sale or exchange of lands.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A. 169, 56 N.J.L. 466, 27 Vroom 466, 1894 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-daly-nj-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack