From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paige v. Powers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1925
215 App. Div. 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

Opinion

November, 1925.


Where two brokers are employed, the one effects the sale who brings the minds of the parties to meet. ( Hobbs v. Edgar, 23 Misc. 618, 620; Smith v. McGovern, 65 N.Y. 574.) There is no evidence that plaintiff accomplished this, but there is evidence that broker Goldstein did. The verdict of the jury is, therefore, against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment and order are reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Kelby, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Paige v. Powers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1925
215 App. Div. 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)
Case details for

Paige v. Powers

Case Details

Full title:CHESTER G. PAIGE, Respondent, v. THOMAS J. POWERS, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1925

Citations

215 App. Div. 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

Citing Cases

Ellison v. Sudduth Realty Co.

Houston v. Faul, 86 Ala. 232, 5 So. 433; Bissinger v. Prince, 117 Ala. 480, 23 So. 67. A person may list his…

Ellison v. Sudduth Realty Co.

A person may list his real property with as many brokers as he deems fit, but it is the broker who first…