The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-12-24
COURT OF APPEALS.
Commissions the Sale or Real Estats The
New York Hippodrome.
BY Justice Hunt

Communications ON fhe Sale or Real Essnts. Tho
New York Hippodrome.
BY Justice Hunt
Chouucey Baymcrd a. John b Mosnot The following
decision Of tho Court or Appeals Of considerable
interest estate brokers well the legal pro-
frssion u win DO TO establish important rule
In regard 10 commissions on tho sale Of real estate
The plaintiff brought his action In tho Supreme Court
against the defendant to recover his compensation
real estate broker amounting TO 500, In eectng the
vale Of the pgoaf. ~. D.opsy IN The cry q New rev
Judgment was affirmed n the General Term Of the First
Distr,cL
The facts may b. stated follows Tho plaintiff
real estate broker the city Of Now York employed
by the defendant 70 negotiate sale OF certain real prop
ery o. The defendant known as the hppodrome prop
tons 10 soccesfu s-ue tho 3Ist Of May 1885, when
tho defendant and Amos X Emo an sgree-
purchase Of the property the defendant agreed
SCH 10 Emo tho Hippodromr property for $3.50 900,
ny n sash No ss sosa~a %
aud No ~ Broadway at $4,000 10 these terms both
parties were agreed The parties having agreed upon
the Of their bargain set out for the oco Of Mr.
wetmore Eno's lawyer 10 put thu agreement in wiring
They stopped ON the way nj the Office OF Mr. Logan.
Monncss lawyer, and stated TO him The terms Of the
again stated, and u WAS arranged that Mr. Logan should
draw the contract subsequently Mr.. Logan, Dsbaif
OF nosnot objected 10 certain leases which The
PIC property witch hosDot 10 receive. though
they had been discn-sed snd agreed upon by
Emo offered remove The Icass give shs property
Of ths. Emo ready carry out the contract
and no further objection sas made on account Of The
leases Monnot subsequently declined to perform tho
contract alleging the unwingness OF bis vile 70 ia
compilation. Another bargain was therefore made and
cornpistcd between Emo aud the defendant by which
Eno purchased from the defendant portion Of tho
Hippodromo property, 70 the valnc Of Si'0ooo, and
nortgagcs The pianin nonsuited upon the ground
that could mot maintain an action for his compcnsa
ton until the agreement for the sale Of the properly hsd
been reduced 10 writing and signed BY the parteA me
General Term BY their written opinion, concunsd IN
this view u law think he dscision
n and 20 an &c
no more. lilo had NO power 70 sxscuie contrast;
pay tho for the one side 70 c,svey the land
eIlhsr Of their duflcA The plaintiff produced purcbas.r
willing end ready 10 srcept The terms o. tbs defendants
then earned bis coumissons, and is would be singular
eonciusop tn Lac that tho refusal Of his employer
soDplss. n. o..s.. should destroy b.. rss. % .n.
fai performance Of the scrvics and upon nothing else
On bc hand, however much time he might devote TO
o. The Defendant uns&s he
nndng purchaser, he vas entitled 10 compensation,
aud tho other MS right was pcris 70 soon ~ that
condition We. performed tsosss vs. Bierb~e 81 ~ y,
Kock Emmerey, ~ Howard u 3, S4.t In tho
Last cisd, as in the present, thu broad ground
can be- specifically enforcsd nnle~ mas been iuiy
executed" ~ 10 The Court say. "whsrs the vendor
satisfied ~s To. term. mad. y hossn ns
can be stated TO tho contract IL would sesm
10 be clear that the commrson Of tho agent
a novel I p1ucp ssns sc Sspass ,h, sspa
clonsiy defeat hts own contract with his agent by
refusing 10 pay him, when he had done all that he
boand 70 do. The agent might weil undertake 10 pro-
purchaser; bot, this being done, his labor and
expense could Dot avail blm o. he could not coerce
Willingness 70 pay the continuation, which tho vendor hsd
agreed pay sucb state Of tbings coad only arise
from express ndcrsIanding tha, the vendoS
pay nothing unless be choze 10 make the saisn Judg-
men N n IL trlsl 2Svesi
Horace barnard. plsisnGs aucrsey; y. Logan do
fendani's attorney.