Majority
p. 1043LOEB et al. v. TEPPER et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. November 24, 1908.) Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN, and SEA-BURY, JJ.
Headnote
Brokers (§ 86*)—Actions eob Compensation—Evidence—Sufficiency.•For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Where, in an action for brokers’ commissions, the evidence did not establish any final consent of defendant to make the exchange of property claimed by the brokers to have been agreed upon, nor clearly show that the brokers were employed by defendant any more than by the other party to the exchange, a verdict for the brokers was unwarranted, and will be set aside.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers', Cent. Dig. §§ 116-120; Dec. Dig. § 86.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, First District.
Action by William Loeb and another against Isak Tepper and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and Tepper appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Samuel N. Freedman, for appellant.
Kramer & Bourke, for respondents.
The action is for brokers’ commissions. The evidence does not establish any final consent of defendant to make
p. 1044
the exchange of property claimed by plaintiff to have been agreed upon with De Angelo, which alleged proposed exchange never took place, nor does the evidence clearly show that plaintiff was employed by defendant any more than by De Angelo. The judgment in plaintiff’s favor is clearly against the vast preponderance of evidence, nor can it be said to be supported by any satisfactory proof.
Judgment reversed and new' trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.