Meislahn v. Englehard — 20 N.Y.S. 900

Majority

p. 900

Meislahn v. Englehard et al.

(City Court, of New York, General Term.

December 7, 1892.)

Headnote

Action for Brokerage—Evidence.

In an action for brokerage, the broker introduced evidence showing that he procured a person who offered §15,500 for defendants’ property; that his principals would not accept this amount, but desired §250 more; that he then went to the intending purchaser, who agreed to pay this extra amount; that one of defendants then said to him “You are the best go-between I ever saw. ” Held, that the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by George T. Meislahn against Adam J. Englehard and others for brokerage. From a judgment for plaintiff entered on a verdict, and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before Van Wyck and McCarthy, JJ.

Rose & Putzel, for appellants. Malcolm Campbell, for respondent.

There are no exceptions by appellants, except to the denial of motion to nonsuit at close of plaintiff’s case, and to dismiss on the merits after defendants had rested; and the case does not contain a certificate that it contains all the evidence; and so it follows that, if the evidence and the legal inferences therefrom are sufficient to carry the case to the jury, the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed. This action is to recover a brokerage of 5 per cent, for causing the sale of defendants’ saloon for $15,750. It was conceded that plaintiff was entitled to this commission of $787.50, if to anything, but liability by defendants was denied. The evidence for plaintiff shows that he took the purchaser to the saloon, and introduced him to one partner, and he informed him that he had brought him to buy the saloon, and the purchaser then offered, first, $10,000, and afterwards $15,000, this offer to stand until Monday night; that this partner refused to accept until he had consulted his copartner, and bade the purchaser and plaintiff return; that at the appointed time and place both partners, the purchaser, and plaintiff met, and the negotiations were renewed by plaintiff, who said the purchaser would pay $15,500, but this the purchaser refused to pay at first, but finally consented, and plaintiff testified: “Then I had a conversation with defendant Englehard, and he said to me: ‘ You see Quirk [the purchaser] again, and see if he won’t go $250. Tell him I will split the difference with him.’ So I went out and saw Mr. Quirk, and told him what Mr. Englehard said. Mr. Quirk said $250 would not stand in the way of his getting the saloon. Then I saw Mr. Englehard, and told him what Mr. Quirk said, and I asked him what he thought of me as a broker, and he said I was the best go-between he ever saw.” And Mr. Englehard, on cross-examination, was asked: “Question. Mr. Meislahn didn’t propose to buy this store as principal? Answer. He said, the first night, *My client,’ referring to Mr. Quirk. ” The evidence as shown by the record was ample" to carry the case to the jury, and the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.