Strickland v. Bulman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strickland v. Bulman

271 A.D.2d 1038

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 1038 (Strickland v. Bulman) 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

Strickland v. Bulman, 271 A.D.2d 1038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of no cause of action in favor of the defendant, entered upon a directed verdict, and from an order which denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict in his favor. The action was brought to recover a real estate broker’s commission in the sum of $3,750. Defendant offered his garage property for sale at a price of $75,000 in cash, title to close about the 1st of February, 1946. Before title was closed, and before a written agreement of sale and purchase was executed the defendant withdrew his offer of sale. The trial court held that plaintiff did not produce a buyer, ready, able and willing to comply with defendant’s terms of sale, and also that the defendant did not act in bad faith when he withdrew his offer of sale. The evidence supports these conclusions. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

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

Appeal from a judgment of no cause of action in favor of the defendant, entered upon a directed verdict, and from an order which denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict in his favor. The action was brought to recover a real estate broker’s commission in the sum of $3,750. Defendant offered his garage property for sale at a price of $75,000 in cash, title to close about the 1st of February, 1946. Before title was closed, and before a written agreement of sale and purchase was executed the defendant withdrew his offer of sale. The trial court held that plaintiff did not produce a buyer, ready, able and willing to comply with defendant’s terms of sale, and also that the defendant did not act in bad faith when he withdrew his offer of sale. The evidence supports these conclusions. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 1038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-bulman-nyappdiv-1947.