p. 1033Headnote
Real-Estate Brokers—Contract between—Commissions.Plaintiff and defendant, real-estate brokers, entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff promised to divide commissions with defendant, if he would find a purchaser for certain property which plaintiff had for sale. Defendant found a purchaser, but made the sale with the owner of the property, plaintiff knowing nothing of the transaction until just before the contract was signed. Plaintiff thereupon brought action against the owner for commissions, claiming that he made the sale. Defendant made a like claim, and the owner had him interpleaded as defendant in the action. Held, that defendant acted as plaintiff’s agent in making the sale, and therefore that as between them the commissions belonged to plaintiff, who was liable to defendant for one-half thereof under the agreement.
Action by Morris Kohn against the owner of certain property to recover commission for the sale of the same. Isaac Jacobs made a like claim against the owner, and was interpleaded as defendant in the action. Judgment for plaintiff. Jacobs appeals.
Argued before VAN WYCK and FITZSIMONS, JJ.A & L. Levy, for appellant.
David Leventritt, for respondent.
The plaintiff and defendant are real-estate brokers. The plaintiff, as broker, had for sale the premises 14 Stanton street. He showed said premises to defendant, and requested him to purchase the same. Defendant refused, but said that he had a customer who might do so. It was then agreed that, if such was done, the commissions should be divided. Defendant did induce a customer to purchase the premises mentioned. Such purchaser was introduced to the seller by defendant, and plaintiff even did not know of the intended purchaser until just about the time the contract of sale was signed. He certainly did nothing to effect the sale beyond showing the premises to defendant as before stated. Plaintiff commenced an action against the owner of said premises for the commission due the broker who made the sale, claiming that he accomplished the sale. Defendant did likewise make a like claim against the owner, who, desiring to avoid possibly the payment of both claims, had the present defendant interpleaded as defendant. The jury evidently believed plaintiff’s version of the
p. 1034transaction in question, and their finding of the facts is conclusive, so far as we are concerned. The only question for us to determine is, does the evidence justify the verdict? Plaintiff apparently was -engaged by the owner of the premises mentioned to procure a purchaser. He could not do so, but defendant could, and so promised. In return for any services so rendered, plaintiff agreed to pay him one-half of the commissions earned. In his efforts to secure a purchaser defendant acted as and was the agent, servant, or assistant of plaintiff, and all his acts were done as an agent of plaintiff, and consequently inured to plaintiff’s benefit. Therefore, when one of his (defendant’s) customers became the purchaser of said premises, the commissions earned because of such sale, although the sale was made by, and due to the efforts of, defendant exclusively, and was not contributed to by any act or deed of plaintiff’s, were due-plaintiff, and defendant had in turn a claim against plaintiff for one-half of the same, because of their contract to that effect, for which he may bring action, but had no right to recover herein, because of the nature of the issues raised by the pleadings. Therefore the judgment rendered must be affirmed, with costs.
We find no error.