New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-01-12
CIVIL COURTS.
COURT OF APPEALS .,...

ms S,Tt, on REAL ESTATE.
C,or~roy barnard aCt. john y. llonLOi.
uqo ,Jo;"iiff brought his action IN The supreme
(onrt ins, ire defendant TO recover ne com i,
rs real estate lrokei @ Nv I'm }Le civ Of New
SCrE on Inc tial tAe pl"tHi We no. i I5r.t
Judgment was affirmed a5 the OeAeiIl Acll" Vi 'o
District Sa ssc may be stated as follows Tho plaintiff real
estae Dot 70 ne y0tiae sale OF certain real property
Of INC defendant known as the HIN ?iiohe tltt-,'
sSeu issue on the Slst Of May, 1sj5 when The o9
tendant aud Amos r. Ero came 20 an w.
which was complete in az It's terms lQr the sac n
ChQse OF the property. The defendant aeee1 10 SVl5
EUO the Hipp0dr0mc property Tor S-1O%w, am ff w.
Gcreed 20 by 10 at that price, to be pld rs IooNS'
$4,000 in cash. No. So BroadTy at &230o ana bot
"a Broadway at $1,000 40 t tHfo a'cSIaed upon
me terms Of their bargain, set out Tor the oce U
rr,e,i On tlc vv nj is Office Of Mr. Logan Mon
noPs layytr and stated to linn the terms Of tne 4sLo
sfotej and n was arIned that 1r Logan should draw
Tho contract subsequently, -lr Lc5iin'h O -, cT ta
tJeces of r0neyfV which 5loaot was 10 receive thougI
ihey had been discussed and agreci upol ~ fSi 80
remove he leases aud give the property ce Oh tAy.
Emo ready 20 carry out uie Wy ~ 49, Nf~,,nct
sniea9cny declined to perform the contract, alleging
the unwng,eS o. ~ made and comDlefed between Emo
H. Gcfon5ant by which Emo purchased from the de-
snhuf " Tnrfion Of TIE HippodrOmo property, TO the
nssuUins certain mortgages. Thc plaintiff was nonsu.ed
@ t Sr6urd Tat he could not maintain on action for
liz e0n,TensatiOn until the agreement for the hao
nf tbc iproperiy had been reduced To writing
and stoned Gy the parties. Inc G'her a.
iTerm by their written opinion, colcuIl SSo,i -
ths ,e If inc law think the decision erroneous
The duty of the broker consisted in bringing inc 1ns va
The vendor and vendee TO agreement He could 90 no
more He had no power 70 execute contracts 10 Pay S
money for the one side, 10 convey the Land on tue par vi
the other or TO compel the performance by either OF the
duties The plainff produced a purchaser Wlhig ana
ready 10 accept the terms Of the defendant ana able 10
perf3m The Obligation his part lie bad then earned
lis commits oIs and it would be singular conclusion OI
the law the refusal Of his employer 10 complies We
bargain should destroy his night 10 Them HIS HSht TO
the commissions depended upon the successful perform
nnce of the service and upon nothing else on te Oe
hond however much time he might dcNoc 70
~ tho defendant unless he scceSSiul III lnulS
purcbaser he was entitled 10 compensation anu on
Inc olcr his right perfect so soon as tl cohuYu
was performed Ciioscs agt. BCrbieg 81 ~ ~ 4b! ne
morley p Howard IT, S. Ga In the case last cted' as III
fIo present, tho broad ground was assuhlcu
THAT no contract Of this character can DO
kpechcalny enforced unless IL has Dcen 1uiy
executed" ~ 49, The Court say: Where tho vendor
a soffpd with the terms made by himself through me
broker the purchaser, and 10 SOLD oDecuoh can nc
stated To the contract il would seem 10 be clear mat the
commission OF the gent due and ought to Dc PAID
It would b. novel principle the vendor nnght capri
riousy defeat his contract with his agent ny refusing
70 pay him when Lc had done all that he was bound 10
do The agent mi y,t well undertake to procure a pur-
chaser but this being done, his labor and expense cOud
NOT avail him rs he could not cOeTCc willingness TO pay
Such state Of tbicrs could only arise rom an express
understanding that the vendor was To pay nouLg IN
less he chose make the SALE judgment snOud De It.
Versed and q trial ordered
Horace Barnard plaintiffs attorney; E. logan, defend
ants attorney.