Case ID: ad_148/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Jenks, P. J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jennie Schusterman, Respondent, v. Emma Kraus, Appellant.
    Second Department,
    January 5, 1912.
    Principal and agent — broker’s action for commissions — evidence — acceptance of customer produced by other broker.
    Where a real estate broker was not given the exclusive right to find a purchaser for lands, the owner when sued for commissions is entitled to show that before the broker produced a customer she had in good faith accepted a purchaser produced by another broker.
    Appeal by the defendant, Emma Kraus, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the 23d day of May, 1911.
    
      J. Hunter Lack, for the appellant.
    
      John R. Jones, for the respondent.
   Jenks, P. J.:

This is an action for the recovery of broker’s commissions upon the sale of realty. The defendant sought to prove that prior to the communication of the plaintiff to her that plaintiff had found a purchaser, the defendant ¡ had affirmed a sale made through another broker. But she was prevented by various general .objections which were sustained by the court under exceptions.

It did not appear that the employment ;of the plaintiff was exclusive. Therefore, evidence that tended] to show that before the plaintiff produced her customer the defendant in good faith had accepted a purchaser produced by another broker, was relevant to the issue of the defendant’s liability. (Ettinghoff v. Horowitz, 115 App. Div. 571.)

The judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and a new trial must be ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Bjrsghberg, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred.

. Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.