Majority
p. 799BURKE v. PFEFFER (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. February 25, 1901.) Argued before AEDREWS, P. J„ and O’GORMAN and BLAN-CHARD, JJ.
Headnote
Brokers—Compensation—Action—Evidence—Sufficiency.Where a broker sued to recover for having secured a purchaser for real estate, and it appeared that he submitted an offer to defendant, who on the next day sold the property to one whom plaintiff claimed as his customer, but there was no evidence that his agency was the procuring cause of the sale or that he brought the parties together, the complaint was properly dismissed.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Eighth district.
Action by Francis St. John Burke against Frank Pfeffer. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
David B. King (Clarence P. Morse, of counsel), for appellant.
Edward A. Pfeffer, for respondent.
It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, who is a real-estate broker, submitted an offer of $12,000 to the defendant, and that the latter on the following day, in the absence of the plaintiff, sold the property for the same price to a person who the plaintiff claims was his customer. The plaintiff, however, failed to establish that the sale was effected through his agency, as its procuring cause, or that he was the means of bringing the parties to
p. 800
getlier, or that his efforts were instrumental in producing the sale. Whether the defendant had prior negotiations with the same person is not disclosed by the record. On the meager testimony adduced, too much is left to conjecture. The complaint was properly dismissed, and the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. .