Case ID: misc_7/html/0487-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

August Gemunder et al., Respondents, v. Isidor Hauser, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    March, 1894.)
    Plaintiffs were employed by defendant to find a purchaser for a valuable violin, and called the attention of an eminent lady performer to it. Thereafter she saw the violin, and remembering that plaintiffs had spoken of it, went to see them, when they suggested that some wealthy person might buy it for her. She then recommended the instrument to one M,, who made the purchase. Held, sufficient to show that plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the sale.
    Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    The action was to recover $500 commissions for procuring the sale of a “ Stradivarius ” violin at the price of $5,000 upon a special agreement of employment by defendant.
    
      Einstein <& Townsend {Iienry Yonge, of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Hilo, liuebsarnen <& Cochran, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury that the plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the sale of defendant’s violin to Mr. Gordon McKay. It seems that the sale was effected through Miss Van Stosch, an eminent performer on the violin, who called the attention of Mr. McKay to the instrument in question, and he purchased it in order that she might have a superior instrument to play upon. He was a man of wealth who could afford thus to indulge his artistic taste and generous sentiments.

The plaintiffs had urged Miss Van Stosch to use the instrument, suggesting that some wealthy person might buy it for her, and communicated that suggestion to defendant, who had employed them to find a purchaser. The result turned out as plaintiffs hoped, and was due to their interesting Miss Van Stosch, who strongly recommended the instrument to Mr. McKay, so that the sale was certainly the result of plaintiffs’ effort, and not to any other agency. We do not consider it of much, if any, importance that plaintiffs had originally been the first to speak to Miss Van Stosch about the violin and had called her attention to it (long before she saw it or spoke to defendant about it); because, as she says, that went out of her mind; and if that was all that there was in the case we doubt if the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover. _ But when some weeks afterwards she saw the violin at the defendant’s house, she recalled that plaintiffs had spoken to her about it, and next day went to plaintiffs, mentioned the subject and then came the suggestion which ultimately resulted in the purchase by Mr. McKay.

As to the exceptions, they are disposed of by the appellant’s brief, and there is no error which calls for reversal.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Daly, Gh. J., Bischoff and Pbyob, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.