Wakefield v. Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wakefield v. Street

83 N.Y.S. 765, 86 A.D. 630

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

DecidedJuly 24, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 83 N.Y.S. 765 (Wakefield v. Street) 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

Wakefield v. Street, 83 N.Y.S. 765, 86 A.D. 630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by real estate brokers to recover commissions for effecting a sale of property belonging to the defendant. At the close of the evidence in behalf of the plaintiffs, a motion to dismiss the complaint was made and granted. We think that this disposition of the case was correct, inasmuch as the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were the procuring cause of the sale. It was error, however, to render a judgment dismissing the complaint upon the merits. The New York Municipal Court Act provides that, where the plaintiff does not prove his cause of action, the judgment must be that the action be dismissed, with costs, without prejudice to a new action. Laws 1902, p. 1561, c. 580, § 248. A judgment of dismissal on the merits can be granted only where, at the close of the whole case, the court is of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as matter of law, or where the court sustains a demurrer and no leave to plead over is granted. Id. § 249.

The judgment must be modified by striking out the words “on the merits,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “without prejudice to a new action,” and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by real estate brokers to recover commissions for effecting a sale of property belonging to the defendant. At the close of the evidence in behalf of the plaintiffs, a motion to dismiss the complaint was made and granted. We think that this disposition of the case was correct, inasmuch as the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were the procuring cause of the sale. It was error, however, to render a judgment dismissing the complaint upon the merits. The New York Municipal Court Act provides that, where the plaintiff does not prove his cause of action, the judgment must be that the action be dismissed, with costs, without prejudice to a new action. Laws 1902, p. 1561, c. 580, § 248. A judgment of dismissal on the merits can be granted only where, at the close of the whole case, the court is of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as matter of law, or where the court sustains a demurrer and no leave to plead over is granted. Id. § 249.

The judgment must be modified by striking out the words “on the merits,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “without prejudice to a new action,” and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.Y.S. 765, 86 A.D. 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wakefield-v-street-nyappdiv-1903.