Case ID: nys_5/html/0346-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shope v. Campbell.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    May 18, 1889.)
    ¡Factors and Brokers—Commissions.
    Where the uncontradicted evidence in an action by a broker for compensation for effecting a loan for defendant shows that defendant informed plaintiff that he desired the loan; that when he told defendant he would try to procure it, the latter told him to do so; and that he afterwards told defendant.that he had succeeded, and mentioned the amount of his charges, which defendant said was satisfactory, —judgment should be rendered for plaintiff.
    Appeals from Richmond county court.
    Action by Julian Shope against Daniel Campbell, to recover $100 for services as a loan broker. Judgment for plaintiff for $60, and both' parties appeal.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt and Dykman, JJ.
    
      Julian Shope, plaintiff, pro se. John J. Kenney, for defendant.
   Dykman, J.

This is an action for the recovery of compensation for services performed by the plaintiff in the procurement of a loan of money, which he effected for the defendant. The action was commenced and tried in a court of a justice of the peace, and upon the trial the plaintiff testified that the defendant desired a loan, and, when the plaintiff informed him that he would try and effect the loan the defendant desired him to go ahead. He then testified to a subsequent conversation in which he informed the defendant that he had parties who would make the loan, and that his charges for obtaining the loans would be $100, to which the defendant replied, “All right; that is satisfactory. ” The defendant offered no evidence, and so the testimony of the plaintiff stood uncontradicted. Yet the justice rendered a judgment for the defendant, which was reversed on appeal by the county court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $60. The judgment was made $60 in the county court because the plaintiff had received $40 from another source. Both parties have appealed, but we think the judgment of the county court is according to the very right of the ease, as that court is bound to do. The judgment of the county court should be affirmed, without costs. All concur.