Case ID: nys_64/html/1135-10.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

FORST, Respondent, v. MARSHALL, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 17, 1900.)
    Action by Paul C. Forst against Sarah E. Marshall. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Clark B. Augustine, for appellant. Meston A. Alexander, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The evidence warranted findings of employment and performance. Enough appeared to show that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the exchange. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, in connection with the evidence, is quite convincing that Mr. Glickman’s memory was at fault when he was examined as a witness, and that the probabilities were with the version presented on behalf of the plaintiff as to the source of Mr. Glickman’s ■ information as to the Edgecombe avenue ’ lots. There is no merit in the appeal, as there was no error which affected the result. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.