p. 375Charles A. Johnson, Resp’t, v. Isaac Bernheimer et al., App’lts.(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,Headnote
Brokers—Commissions.Plaintiff was employed by defendants to negotiate for the sale of certain land for a fixed price, and it was agreed that if he could procure a sale to one R., who had been negotiating for it, that his commission would be earned. It being found that the property was too large for one purchaser, defendants consented that plaintiff could arrange a sale to two or more at the same time. Plaintiff brought R. and a member of a firm together, who finally bought the premises at the price fixed. Held, that plaintiff’s commission was earned.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial.
Action to recover commissions on a sale of real estate.
Edward D. Bettens, for app’lts; F. P. Trautmann, for resp’t.
In March, 1889, the defendants, who owned a valuable piece of property on Newton creek, in Kings county, employed the plaintiff, who was a real estate broker, to negotiate for the sale of the same. The price fixed was $125,000. It was stated that one Reynolds had been negotiating for the property, but that no sale had been reached. It was further stated that if Reynolds could be induced to buy of the plaintiff, the commission upon the sale should be considered earned. The plaintiff did open negotiation with Reynolds. He made an offer, which was refused. It was found that the property was too large for one purchaser, and consent was obtained of the defendants that plaintiff
p. 376could make sale at one time to several parties for the entire price of $125,000. The plaintiff tried to combine purchasers. He introduced one Davis, of the firm of Cross, Austin & Co., to Reynolds. Reynolds was first made acquainted with the fact that the firm of Cross, Austin & Co. wished to purchase the projierty. Reynolds and Ireland, who was one of the firm of Cross, Austin & Co., finally bought the property for the full sum of $125,000. The jury has found the employment, and that the plaintiff was the efficient cause of the sale, and that the sale was made by the defendants while the employment was existing, and that $1,390.45 was justly earned by the plaintiff thereby.
The verdict is therefore just and fully supported by the evidence, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.