From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloomingdale v. Hodges

City Court of New York, General Term
Apr 1, 1897
20 Misc. 713 (N.Y. City Ct. 1897)

Opinion

April, 1897.

Henry Tompkins, for appellants.

Horwitz Hershfield, for respondent.


Defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff's firm 10 per cent. of the amount realized by them out of a certain contract to be made between them and one Proctor, providing the plaintiff's firm procured such contract from Proctor.

Plaintiff performed his part of the agreement and now defendants claim that plaintiffs were the agents of Proctor, and, therefore, cannot recover herein.

There is no evidence even tending to show that plaintiff's firm was Proctor's agent, in fact the contrary is shown, and that in conducting the business in question he was solely and only defendants' agent.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: VAN WYCK, Ch. J., FITZSIMONS and McCARTHY, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Bloomingdale v. Hodges

City Court of New York, General Term
Apr 1, 1897
20 Misc. 713 (N.Y. City Ct. 1897)
Case details for

Bloomingdale v. Hodges

Case Details

Full title:LYMAN G. BLOOMINGDALE, Respondent, v . ARTHUR A. HODGES et al., Appellants

Court:City Court of New York, General Term

Date published: Apr 1, 1897

Citations

20 Misc. 713 (N.Y. City Ct. 1897)