Tinkham v. Knox

City of New York Municipal Court

Tinkham v. Knox

18 N.Y.S. 433, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 20

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedApril 5, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 433 (Tinkham v. Knox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tinkham v. Knox, 18 N.Y.S. 433, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 20 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Ehrlich,"C. J.

Where a broker employed to sell or rent property is the means of bringing the owner and purchaser or tenant together, and an agreement follows, the broker is entitled to his brokerage, whether the owner knew or was ignorant at the time that the broker’s efforts were the procuring cause. Wylie v. Bank, 61 N. Y. 415, 417; Lloyd, v. Matthews, 51 N. Y. 124, 132. But that is not this case. The plaintiff does not allege an employment, but that he acted as broker, with the owner’s “knowledge and consent, ” and this was the issue tried. The judge properly sent the question to the jury, telling them, in substance, that, if the defendant had “conscious knowledge that the plaintiff had acted as broker before the agreement was consummated, he was liable, otherwise not.” On the issue raised and tried, we find no error in the charge, nor in the rulings of the trial judge, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Ehrlich,"C. J.

Where a broker employed to sell or rent property is the means of bringing the owner and purchaser or tenant together, and an agreement follows, the broker is entitled to his brokerage, whether the owner knew or was ignorant at the time that the broker’s efforts were the procuring cause. Wylie v. Bank, 61 N. Y. 415, 417; Lloyd, v. Matthews, 51 N. Y. 124, 132. But that is not this case. The plaintiff does not allege an employment, but that he acted as broker, with the owner’s “knowledge and consent, ” and this was the issue tried. The judge properly sent the question to the jury, telling them, in substance, that, if the defendant had “conscious knowledge that the plaintiff had acted as broker before the agreement was consummated, he was liable, otherwise not.” On the issue raised and tried, we find no error in the charge, nor in the rulings of the trial judge, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 433, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinkham-v-knox-nynyccityct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack