Case ID: ny_233/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otto H. Wachtel, Appellant, v. A. R. Mosler & Co., Respondent.
    
      Contract ■— commissions —• when commissions on sale of goods not earned under terms of contract of employment — when details of contract are agreed, upon in Washington mere signing thereof in New York did not make sale a New York sale.
    
    
      Wachtel v. Mosler & Co., 195 App. Div. 240, affirmed.
    (Submitted March 17, 1922;
    dec ded April 18, 1922.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered February 24, 1921, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and directing judgment in favor of defendant. The action was for commissions under a contract of employment reading as follows: “We employ you as our salesman in New York City and in New Jersey as far as Trenton (not included), Westchester County as far as Peekskill, N. Y. (not included), Jersey coast' as far as and up to Atlantic City (not included), Long Island, Brooklyn and Staten Island and such other territories where from time to time we may request you to go. Compensation shall be at the rate of 10% commission on all sales made by you or by us in your territory above mentioned, when shipped and paid for * * The question was whether commissions were payable upon orders received from the United States government, not procured by plaintiff, for material to be shipped to the United States expeditionary force in France. The Appellate Division held that the mere circumstance that under governmental regulations the formal signing of the contracts was performed by the New York quartermaster did not make the sale a New York sale. Every detail of the contracts had been agreed upon in Washington and the New York quartermaster was a mere instrumentality, carrying out the directions of the quartermaster-general’s department in Washington.
    
      William Rand and William Rand, Jr., for appellant.
    
      Frederick W. Sperling for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Greenbaum, J., below.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.