From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kennon v. Poerschke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 1912
148 App. Div. 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)

Summary

In Kennon v. Poerschke, 148 A.D. 839 (1st Dept. 1912), a non-owner party that employed a broker to find a purchaser was held liable for commissions when the broker supplied the purchaser.

Summary of this case from Newmark Co. Real Estate v. New Yorker Hotel Mgt. Co.

Opinion

February 2, 1912.

William R. Hill, for the appellants.

Adolph Freyer [ Jacob Klein with him on the brief], for the respondent.


This is an action on an assigned claim of one White, a real estate broker, for commissions on the sale of real estate owned by the defendant Fuchs. The employment of plaintiff's assignor was by the appellant Poerschke. There is no evidence that he was authorized by the owner to employ the broker, or that the owner knew or had been informed at any time prior to the sale that the plaintiff's assignor had been employed as a broker or had been instrumental in effecting a sale. The owner cannot be held liable to a broker for commissions on mere proof of the fact that the broker was instrumental in procuring a purchaser for the premises where there is no evidence of employment, and the purchaser comes to the owner through another person with whom all of the negotiations, so far as the owner is concerned, were had. It does not appear what interest, if any, the appellant Poerschke had in the premises, but the evidence tends to show an employment by him of plaintiff's assignor as if he were the owner, and that plaintiff's assignor obtained a purchaser for the premises on his terms and that is sufficient to sustain the verdict against him.

The judgment and order appealed from, therefore, as to the defendant Poerschke, should be affirmed, with costs to the respondent. For the reasons already assigned, however, the judgment and order must be reversed as to the appellant Fuchs and a new trial granted, with costs to her to abide the event.

INGRAHAM, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., concurred.

As to defendant Poerschke judgment affirmed, with costs. As to defendant Fuchs judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to her to abide event. Order to be settled on notice.


Summaries of

Kennon v. Poerschke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 1912
148 App. Div. 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)

In Kennon v. Poerschke, 148 A.D. 839 (1st Dept. 1912), a non-owner party that employed a broker to find a purchaser was held liable for commissions when the broker supplied the purchaser.

Summary of this case from Newmark Co. Real Estate v. New Yorker Hotel Mgt. Co.
Case details for

Kennon v. Poerschke

Case Details

Full title:ELIJAH KENNON, Respondent, v . EDWARD R. POERSCHKE and MARY FUCHS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 2, 1912

Citations

148 App. Div. 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)
133 N.Y.S. 528

Citing Cases

U-Buy Realty v. Aliota

The dissent in arguing that the broker should collect his commission from the husband stated (at 912), "[T]he…

Sholom Zuckerbrot Realty Corp. v. Citibank

Initially, defendant argued that it could not be liable for a brokerage commission because it never owned the…