Case ID: ny_51/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gray, C.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Richard, Respondent, v. George W. Quintard et al., Appellants.
    (Argued May 17, 1872;
    decided September term, 1872.)
    An agreement by a manufacturer to pay a per centage upon the proceeds of any sale effected, as a commission to one introducing to Mm a customer, is not, per se, void as against public policy and good morals.
    This action was brought to recover commissions, under an alleged agreement by which defendants,.who were manufacturers of steam boilers, etc., in the city of New York, in consideration of plaintiff’s introducing to their establishment in New York one Ramon Montero, of Lima, Peru, agreed to pay him ten per cent upon the amount of any goods defendants should sell said Montero.
    Plaintiff gave proof tending to show the agreement as alleged by him, and that Montero purchased goods to the amount of about $33,000. Defendants claimed and gave proof tending to show the agreement to have been that the price of the goods was to be enhanced ten per cent, and that Montero, being ignorant of our language, was to be and was induced by plaintiff to pay the extortionate price.
    
      Defendants’ counsel requested the court to charge that if plaintiff agreed with defendants that he was to have a pet centage out of the proceeds of the contract for his services the agreement was against good morals, and he could not recover. The court refused so to charge. Held, no error; that, as an abstract proposition, such a contract was not Void as against public policy; that if defendants desired to present the question of the agreement as claimed by them, they should have called the court’s attention to and should have asked it to charge in substance that if the jury found an agreement to have been made, as claimed by defendants, to the injury of Montero, it could not be enforced.
    Other questions were presented which were disposed of upon the facts in the case.
    E. C. Benedict for the appellant.
    
      John E. Burrill for the respondents.
   Gray, C.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.