Huxford v. Stoddart — 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 1100

Majority

p. 1100

Samuel H. Huxford, Resp’t, v. Matilda S. Stoddart, App’lt.

(New York Superior Court, General Term

Filed June 27, 1890.)

Headnote

Brokers — Commissions.

Where the evidence as to plaintiff being the procuring cause of the sale of defendant’s real estate under an employment for that purpose is conflicting, and is submitted to the jury under a proper charge, a verdict in plaintiff’s favor will not be disturbed.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and from order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. •

Alexander Thain and George William Hart, Jr., for app’lt; Truax & Orandall, for resp’t.

This is an action to recover for services as a xeal estate broker in procuring for the defendant a purchaser of her farm and of certain personal property. Plaintiff’s claim that he was the procuring cause of the sale under an employment as broker for that purpose appears to have been sharply contested at the trial, and it was submitted to the jury under a charge which ■carefully guarded all the rights of the defendant The record discloses no error constituting, under the circumstances of the ease, ground for reversal.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

O’G-orman, J., concurs.