Hyperlawhypertext legal database Davidson v. Howell 145 N.Y.S. 1119

← Cases

Davidson v. Howell

145 N.Y.S. 1119 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1914-01-30 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — INGRAHAM, P. J.

Contents
p. 1119
DAVIDSON et al. v. HOWELL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 30, 1914.)

Headnote

Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by John R. Davidson and another against Grace H. Howell. From an order denying motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Henry D. Patton, of New York City, for appellant. Bertram L. Kraus, of New York City, for respondents.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

I dissent, upon the ground that the plaintiffs procured a purchaser, and, as part of the contract of purchase, agreed that “neither of them shall be entitled to any commission whatsoever, unless title passes hereunder and this contract consummated.” The complaint alleges that the contract never was consummated, that no title ever passed, and therefore, upon the express condition of their employment, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.