Case ID: ny-super-ct_43/html/0564-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Speir, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE DURYEA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW LESTER, Defendant and Appellant.
    
      Decided November 12, 1877.
    
      Trial—Gonduct of.
    
    1. Request to submit questions of fact to the jury.
    
      (a) Necessity of.
    Before Sedgwick and Speie, JJ.
    The action was brought to recover commissions for effecting an exchange of personal property for real, estate. The evidence was conflicting as to the employment and as to plaintiffs being the procuring cause. The judge charged the jury that if they believed the testimony of the plaintiff, and upon that found that he was employed as a broker, and that Avhatever services he rendered, he rendered under such employment, then he would be entitled to recover a verdict of $2,580.50. This was excepted to. There was no request to submit to the jury the question as to whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause. There was no dispute as to the amount the plaintiff was entitled to, if he was entitled to recover at all.
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,580.50. Judgment was entered thereon. A motion was made by defendant for a new trial, which was denied. Defendant appealed from the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
    On the appeal, his counsel urged that the exception to the charge above noted was well taken, because, the charge took from the jury the consideration of the question as to whether plaintiff was the procuring cause, and also because it withdrew from the jury the question of the value of the services. He also claimed that the evidence as to employment was insufficient.
    
      Vanderpoel, Green & Cuming, attorneys, and A. J. Vanderpoel, of counsel, for appellant.
    
      A. Edward Woodruff, attorney, and Theron G. Strong, of counsel, for respondent.
   Speir, J.,

writing for affirmance, held that as there was no dispute, but that if plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, he was entitled to recover the amount for which the verdict was given, and as the question of the employment was submitted to the jury, and no request made to submit any other question of fact, there Avas no ground for the exception. He also held that the evidence as to employment was sufficient to sustain the verdict on that point.

Sedgwick, J., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed with costs.