Case ID: nys_109/html/0153-01.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

ACROPOLIS REALTY CO. v. FROELICH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 5, 1908.)
    Brokers—Commissions—Procuring Purchaser.
    A broker, by producing a party willing to negotiate on a change of the terms, is not entitled to compensation as for producing a purchaser ready and willing to enter into a contract of sale on the terms stated by the owner.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 8, Brokers, § 97.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
    Action by the Acropolis Realty Company against Jacob Froelich From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and BISCHOFF and MacLEAN, JJ.
    Milton Mayer, for appellant.
    Daniel Drangle, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It is apparent from this record that the plaintiff did not produce a purchaser ready and willing to enter into a contract of sale upon the terms stated by the defendant to this broker. At best, a party was produced who was willing to negotiate for a change of the terms, so far as they related to the presence of a mortgage shortly maturing, and no real transaction was concluded.

The justice properly exercised his discretion favorably to the motion to set aside the verdict, and the order granting a new trial is therefore affirmed, with costs.