Case ID: nys_106/html/0767-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MILLER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCHNITZER v. PRICE.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    November 22, 1907.)
    Brokers—Actions for Compensation—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Where a broker sues for commissions for producing a purchaser able to-purchase on defendant’s terms, one of which was a cash payment of $25,000, evidence that the purchaser’s assets consist of a stock of groceries, the value of which is not shown, and a cause of action against third parties for $10,000 or $12,000 for money loaned, and that he has no funds in his possession, held insufficient to show the purchaser’s ability ■to pay $25,000 cash.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 65, Brokers, §§ 116-120.]
    Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
    Action by Barnett Schnitzer against Joseph Price. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.
    Clarence L. Barber, for appellant.
    Jacob Gordon, for respondent.
   MILLER, J.

This is an action for broker’s commissions. No contract was entered into by the principals, and the only question involved is whether the plaintiff showed that he produced a purchaser able to purchase on the defendant’s terms. One of'the terms was a cash payment of $25,000. The proposed purchaser testified that he had in his possession funds sufficient to carry out the cofitract, but his cross-ex-animation showed that his assets consisted of a stock of groceries, the value of which was not shown, and a cause of action for $10,000 or $12,000 against third parties for money loaned, and that he had no funds in his possession.

I think this fell short of proving his ability to pay $25,000 cash, and advise that the judgment and order be reversed. All concur.