Case ID: misc_16/html/0682-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fitzsimons, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY COURT OF NEW YORK—GENERAL TERM,
    MARCH, 1896.
    Jonathan H. Ransom, Respondent, v. John W. Wheelwright et al., Appellants.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff,, entered upon a verdict. . . ' • '"
    . . Abram Eling; tor respondent.
    Wilson &. Wallis,, for appellants.
   Fitzsimons, J.

The jury evidently believed. that the contract which expired April 28, 1891, was renewed in accordance with the terms expressed in ; defendant’s .letter to plaintiff dated April 11, 1891, except that it'expired' only after sixty-days’notice to terminate the same had' been given by- either plaintiff- or defendants. They also believed that he was the person who procured the Drabble Bros, to purchase goods' from the defendants' .to the extent of $60,000, which entitled him to the verdict .rendered. • •.

There is ample testimony.to sustain these beliefs of the jury, and besides we think the record shows that the plaintiff was.equitably entitled to the commission on -. the sales made by def endant to said' firm of ¡Drabble Brothers, because they never were customers of defendant’s firm until after their, orders were solicited by . the plaintiff. We find no error in the printed record and the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

O’Dwyeb and Conlan, JJ.y concur.

' Judgment, affirmed, ■ with costs.