Case ID: ny-st-rep_51/html/0600-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gildersleeve, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. Stanton Riker, Respt. v. Timothy Mahoney et al., App’lts.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed March 6, 1893.)
    
    Services — Procurement of building contract.
    In an action for services in procuring a building contract for defendants, the evidence established the facts that plaintiff introduced the owner of land to defendant, W., after he had informed him of the contemplated building by said owner, and that finally the contract was awarded to defendants ; but as to any agreement to pay plaintiff for such introduction or the nature and value of his services there was a conflict of evidence. Held, that a verdict for plaintiff would not be disturbed.
    Appeal from a judgment, entered on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.
    
      Thornall, Squires & Constant (Franklin Pierce, of counsel), for pl’ffs; Andrew A. Henderson, for def’ts.
   Gildersleeve, J.

The complaint herein sets forth a cause of action for the value of services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendants, in obtaining for the defendants, who are copartners in business, a contract to erect a large apartment house in West Fifty-eighth street, New York city, from one R. La Forte. The plaintiff claims that the defendants employed him to obtain said contract, and agreed to pay him the value of his' services, and that the value of those services is $2,125. The defendants deny the agreement for employment, and deny that the services were worth the sum stated.

The evidence establishes the facts that La Forte was first introduced to the defendant Watson, who acted for his firm in the transactions in question, by the plaintiff, after the plaintiff had informed defendant Watson of the contemplated building by La Forte; and that, finally, the contract for building was awarded, by La Forte to the defendants. But as to any agreement to pay plaintiff for such introduction, and as to the nature and value of his services, there is a sharp conflict of evidence. The questions, of fact arising from the conflicting testimony were properly submitted by the learned trial judge to the jury, who, by their verdict, found in favor of plaintiff’s contention as to the services, and agreement to pay therefor, and fixed the value of such services at $1,000. With this conclusion the general term will not interfere, as there is sufficient evidence to justify the verdict. and sustain the judgment.

The charge, when taken as a whole, is correct, and there are no exceptions to the admission or exclusion of evidence of sufficient-importance to warrant a reversal.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed, with costs

Sedgwick, Oh. J., concurs.