New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-07-01

327I 335. 369, 81, 373 375 ISL 1885, i2I, 423, 4s5
429 431, 1873 1877, AL Az, 4jl. Part II-Nos. 542
544 $40, 54s $50 552 55i, $50, $50, $50, 562 56i,
500, sos $50, So 572 574 57s $50, $50, 5s4, $50,
5ss, 800.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-Before Judges In
graham and Woodruf.-D ecisions.-Br0kers
Commissions.-Cole d Chiffon, respondents, vs..
,JOkn Butler, dPpellaHt.-Appeal from Judge
Cowles of the Marine Court, who gave judgment
in favor of plaintiff for $50 g. being l per cent.
commissions on S6,000 and $50 IS for advertising
&c. on sale of premises 81 Greenst. Messrs c.
& c. were employed BY Mr.. Batter, the owner, to
sell the property at suctioH provided It brought
$500. There were no offers az that. After the
attempt at sale, Messrs C. x G. said they thought
they could get Sir. b. purchaser at private sale,
and he consented they should do so-the limit
being SC $50. Mr. B subsequently sold the prop
erty himself to Mr. Cropsey at $4,000. On noti
fying Messrs c. * C. of the sale they demanded
per cent as if they had sold it, and $50 SO for
advertising and auctioneers fees for the offer OF
s6e at auction. The latter, Mr.. b. was willing to
psy, but not the former, and suit was brought.
There was some little testimony TO show that Mr..
Luther called on c. x c. to know the terms and
that he mentioned it TO Mr. Cropsey; but Mr.. c. in
bis testimony said his attention had been attracted
by the Advertisement at auction he called at the
premises, No. 81, was told MI Butler. was the
owner went 10 him and made the agreement to
subsequently.
Mr. Butler having appealed from the decision Of
Judge c. this Court held Il II broker IN order -
be entitled to recover for commissions, must show
that he had authority from the principal to sell.
Having had such authority the owner cannot take
advantage Of the abors OF the Broker to sell sub
sequently himself aud deprive the broker OF his
commissions; but the owner at the same time, is
at liberty 10 endeavor 10 sell himself, and if he
does so by means not procured by the broker, he
is not liable for the COMMISSIONS Judgment
affirmed to $40 e-, and reversed as 10 balance.
BROKERAGE as to Shipr.-EdmuRd B0vley et al
Vs. John b. Stmes.-Appesl from Judge Green,
lat Judicial District who, in an action for ss2 com
missions against the owner OF the bark 81 Mary,
being per cent. 81, S22 worth OF freight Tor San
Franci.eo and Benecia, California, gave Judgment
for defendant Plaintiff contracted with Raphael
Scboye for a certain number OF houses, or frames,
fer California, ;. 70 give b. x Co. the advantage Of
brokerage on the freight. agreed with Mr.. War
ner IS Fulton.st. who had bill up in his office for
freight Of the vessel to take the said freight, and
it was put on board b. x Co. demurred, and sued
the owl er Of the vessel for commission as above
stated, alleging that Mr.. Warner had promised it,
and that the owner was bound by what Mr. W.
said, and his receiving the goods on board was
proof that Mr.. w. was his agent.
The Court held that there proof that the
owner employed Mr.. Warner, bat even if he did a
broker SO employed is not at liberty to employ
others and charge the owner, except by assent or
after approval If brok err chooses 10 empty others,
after being employed himself, and share the COM
missions, they are at liberty 20 do So The mere
bill Of lsdiDg OF the goods being received on board
has no effect On the question. Judgment affirmed.
with costs.
John Doggett, Jr. VS. John Locke Appeal from
Judge Green who on a suit for s25 for half ayears
advertising OF Portable Baths in The Raaroad
Guide and Register gave judgment for defendant.
III appeared that a young man named Copeland
rCf Nr l. IN ~ nd rfTaa TOR n typa or IA
sbove's rate and to sign paper to that efe;.. In
defense It was said that the young man represented
there would be at least 30 600 copies printed and
perhaps it would go up to 10 900, and it was under
stood there would be different editions, with the
changes that took place, during the year. IL was
also shown that IN the previous year bat ,OOOcoPes
were printed, bat there were different editions
Mr.. Doggett, il bis testimony, stated that Copeland
was unauthorized to say what he dd-that the de-
mand, however, was greater than he could supply
ard that be was about 10 publish a second edition
when be became sick.
The Court considered the understanding to bs
that 1t was not TO be fixed work, bat issued
as the rates OF fare on the roads, &c. changed
Judgment affirmed, with costs
sJ0seph IuDS, respondent vs. Clement y. IVHies,
APPELLANTS Appealfrom Judge Green, and Jury,
where, IN an action for trespass in taking some
half barrels Of pickles. picked Holsters, &c. belong
Jog to plaintiff, from basement corner VI Cliff and
a verdict OF So was given in favor Of plalatf
The property was taken by officer Parker and .
conveyed 20 Sprucest On It's being offered az +
auction, some time afterward il was tound to be .
worthless, owing to the pickle having leaked oat .
and was said badly put up at irst and the "noie
brought but 50 80. The Jury, from the proof,
which, however, was contradictory, considered that
the barrels had been injured after being In posses
sios Of the officer.
This Court held that il was a mere question Of +
fact on which the rcumstances do not cal upon /
them to interfere There was nothing to show that .
there was any injury to the barrels TIL after they
were taken by the officer and the evidence shows
the defendant handled them 10 such manner as
10 cause them to leak, and that 25 days thereafter
they were sold, when the contents were found 10
be spoiled. Judgment affirmed. with costs
John Mcdonald We. Cooper j. Smith.-Apped .
from Judge Van Colt, Of the Fourth Judicial Dis
trict who, on a claim for $50, the value OF pic
ture of Rolia and Frame gave Judgment of nonsut. .
Plaintiff keeps an oyster saloon at l39 BoTery. ,
He had a partner named Howard, now in Csli'Or- /
MIA. who took the picture 10 c. K SIS, who also /
keep in the Bovery. On its being dem anded Mr.
c. refused 10 give Il up, saying il belonged to Mr.
Smith. Plaintiff offered evidence by persons az
custom ed to seeing pictures sold, as to its value.
This Court held that Judge Van C. erred IN ex-
GLIDING the evidence offered Of the value OF the pic
ture That is not case where none bat experts
can be admitted to testify, and II the evidence vas
wrong, defendants who had the picture IN posses
sion could have rebutted il He also erred 10 grant
ing the noDsut, plaintiff showed the picture had
belonged to him, aud that it was afterwards seen
in defendants possession. Judgment reversed
with costs
Uu. 5. Camp, respondent, vs.. Jas. Y Itb6ets'
appelant-Appeai from Judge Lynch OF Marine
Court. who granted attachments against the STOCK
of Mr.. T. on affidavit as an Astounding or haadn-
lent debtor, on two notes on ESQ and go ana On
IL Ind,
The affidavit was made by Il. II. Towner' on pc
half ofMr C. who resides ia Connecticut upon IN
formation and belief &c Mr. Tibbes kept assove
.tore at ll3 Beekman ST. On motion before > aose
T. 10 yacste the attachment be denied tins charge
a, 10 being ascending or fraudulent he staIed
that be as sbsen. from the city bat I'VE Or ia