Case ID: ad_171/html/0900-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Pett, Respondent, v. William Van Zandt Batchelder and Mary A. G. Batchelder, Appellants.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 26 th day of March, 1915, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the 31st day of March, 1915, denying a motion for a new trial.
   Per Curiam:

We think the verdict of the jury that there was any enforeible contract to pay the plaintiff a commission by the defendant on the purchase of this property was against the weight of evidence. The finding of the jury that such a contract existed should, therefore, be reversed, the judgment and order appealed from reversed, and new trial, ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Present — Ingraham P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Dowling, JJ.; Ingraham, P. J., and McLaughlin, J., concurred in the reversal of the judgment, but think the complaint should be dismissed. Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellants to abide event.