Case ID: nys_45/html/1134-05.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

BLOOMINGDALE, Respondent, v. HODGES et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    April 28, 1897.)
    Action by Lyman G. Bloomingdale against Arthur A. Hodges and another.
    Henry Tompkins, for appellants.
    Horwitz & Hershfield, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff’s firm 10 per cent, of the amount realized by them out of a certain contract to be made between them and one Proctor, providing the plaintiff’s firm procured such contract from Proctor. Plaintiff performed his part of the agreement, and now defendants claim that plaintiff was the agent of Proctor, and therefore cannot recover herein. There is no evidence even tending to show that plaintiff’s firm was Proctor’s agent; in fact, the contrary is shown, and that in conducting the business in question he was solely and only defendants’ agent. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.