Case ID: ny-st-rep_68/html/0884-07.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ward, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albert J. Wheeler, Resp’t, v. John Bell et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct. 5 D.
    June 21, 1895.
    
      Adelbert Moot, for app’lt; Adolph Redabow, for resp’t.
   Ward, J.

— The original plaintiff was Mark H. Irish. Irish "sued the defendants in Erie county for fraud in putting upon him some real estate in Buffalo, and in obtaining the same property from him by fraudulent means. The defendants were real estate agents, and assumed to act as gucli for Irish in the purchase of real estate, and went into an arrangement with the owner of some real property in Buffalo, whereby they got an option on the property from him for $10,000, and without disclosing that fact to their principal. Mr. Irish procured the sale to him of this property for $15,000, whereby the defendants and some persons associated with them in the transaction made $5,000. Irish took the property, made some improvements thereon, and left it in chal’ge <?f the defendants, as his agents, for" ai time, and went away, he living in Canada. hxWwards, wanting money, he proposed to sell to defendants the same property." They, in concert with another real1 estate agent, found a purchaser for the property at $24,000, and the defendants; .without informing Irish of this fact, bought the property of Irish, giving him- what he had paid for it, with interest and certain expenditures he had made Upbn the property, amounting in all to $17,500, a,nd they then sold to the other party the same property for the $24,000, and after paying an associate in the business $1,000. the defendants realized from the transaction $5,500, making the total amount they had received in operating on both sides of Mr. Irish $9,500. There was evidence to justify the jury in finding these facts, and they rendered a verdict against the defendants of only $2,000, which defendants seeks to set aside, on exceptions to the refusal to nonsuit, and a refusal to direct a verdict for" defendants, and to certain portions of the charge. None of the exceptions have merit, and the judg-ment and order should be affirmed.