Hyperlawhypertext legal database Harper v. Goodall 62 How. Pr. 288

← Cases

Harper v. Goodall

62 How. Pr. 288 Court General Term, November, 1881. English

Delivered by J. F. Daly, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 288
N. Y. COMMON PLEAS.
Edward B. Harper, plaintiff and appellant, agt. Albert G. Goodall, defendant and respondent.

Headnote

Broker— Commissions—What must be shown to sustain action for.
A broker to sustain an action for commissions must show direct employment of the principal, or a direct authority for him to treat with the agents of the principal.
The employment of a real estate broker to rent the premises in which the family lives is not within the scope of the ordinary agency of the wife, and special authority or ratification must be shown.
General Term, November, 1881.
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of justice Gedney, of eighth district court, dismissing complaint. Action for commissions as broker in procuring tenants for 339 West Thirty-fourth street. Defense—No employment of defendant.
Henry T. Dewey and George W. Brush, for appellant.
D. ]£. Porter and George H. Kracht, for respondent.

— The plaintiff had no personal transaction with defendant, neither had his clerks and agents. The latter acted upon the assumption that defendant’s wife and daughter had authority to employ them. No authority can be assumed in a case like the present. The employment of a real estate broker to rent the premises in which the family lives is not within the scope of the ordinary agency of the wife, and special authority or ratification must be shown. There was no ratification, for defendant is not shown to have accepted the fruits of* plaintiff’s efforts with full knowledge of the facts. The proper course for the plaintiff would have been to secure a direct employment from defendant, or direct

p. 289
authority from him to treat with the latter’s wife or daughter on the subject.

It would be too severe to hold the head of a family responsible for such admissions and declarations as a shrewd broker or his active clerk, who is “ working up the case ” may be able to extort from a wife and daughter or other members of the family.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Van Hoesen, J., concurs.