From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kronenberger v. Bierling

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1902
37 Misc. 817 (N.Y. App. Term 1902)

Opinion

March, 1902.

Richard N. Arnow, for appellant.

Hugo H. Ritterbusch, for respondent.


The plaintiff, as a real estate broker, brought this action to recover one hundred dollars as his commission for effecting the sale of premises, No. 1430, Prospect avenue, in behalf of the owner, the defendant.

The undisputed facts show, that the plaintiff brought one, Charles Lindner, a then intending purchaser, to Mrs. Bierling, defendant's mother, who was authorized to act for him, with the result that the parties came to a complete understanding as to price and terms. Indeed, a deposit of $200 was given by Lindner to Mrs. Bierling and the parties separated with the understanding that a formal contract was to be drawn up, within two or three days. No memorandum or receipt had been signed by either of the parties.

Mr. Lindner changed his mind and refused to enter into any contract with the plaintiff, who stood ready to execute an agreement of sale upon the agreed terms.

The case of Levy v. Kottman, 11 Misc. 372, seems to be decisive in disposing of this appeal. See also Diamond Co. v. Hartley, 38 A.D. 87.

No contract was here made between the parties, whom the plaintiff brought together. The understanding did not even constitute an option, so that neither was legally bound to carry it into effect.

The judgment must be reversed.

FREEDMAN, P.J., and GIEGERICH, J., concur.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Kronenberger v. Bierling

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1902
37 Misc. 817 (N.Y. App. Term 1902)
Case details for

Kronenberger v. Bierling

Case Details

Full title:JACOB KRONENBERGER, Respondent, v . OTTO M. BIERLING, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Mar 1, 1902

Citations

37 Misc. 817 (N.Y. App. Term 1902)

Citing Cases

Wiesenberger v. Mayers

It must be borne in mind that where a broker has failed to procure a customer prepared to buy at a price…