Case ID: nys_72/html/1108-03.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

HUGHES, Respondent, v. MARTIN, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court. Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Action by Albert Hughes against Charles Martin.
    S. G. Derrickson, for appellant. Jeroloman & Arrowsmith, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The indisputable evidence showed that defendant, under an assumed name, employed the plaintiff as a broker in realty to perform services for him. Those services were rendered, and the defendant failed to pay the regular commission. We think the judgment ■awarded for such commission is correct. Judgment affirmed, with costs.