New-York tribune., 1871-07-11

thereupop brought suit against Br Parr and recovered
Judgment for his brokerage From this Mr Parr ap-
pealed General Term which has now reversed the
Judgment. Chef-Justoe DAILY. delivering the opinion
OF the Court, says:
Upon exchange Of property Ike th'
is dihcult 70 say who he user and 50 gar as ne broker eIa
either to buy @ property for
the person whose interest he ng mus
c1vey The plaintiff ony the that he
entitled receive from each Of he parties commission Of one Pet cent
upon the estimated ysn Of TIE PROPERTY exchanged but When n sd
Ts him @ S, b; % S0 1S & p sS 5 m to the dsm6. PnS ' so %
fe would regard tn. purchaser, the bound TO pay
him the % S1 a.,S @e The & Of rps & ,hass o
mated ts himself i not suggested or oqghi Of ess T HUI Or or
bringing cou the Of Of them and then
he scns broker any agent msy undoubtedly
both Of the pDcP. sale o. eIohsnss popey "hs5 G as
arrangement he won have night sppOOn bis
5sief1dsnt Pos tle plaintiff ali .ss.eqry
ged eIchange Of properly was his suggestion and be meant
agent he should advised him that there night be msuld
clear that he intention effect the exchange
he could and get full commission from ron ga, each 4 upon sale Of
S S' 5o %6os 5ig''S e coa} 5 S %
s1pcas s1a fi@' wss aaa clearly ade.e yiea Hull told bin @
Do with the exchange by hi, asking would p,y h,i
his statement to Hull that he get commission from ,he
ton With Hull commission demanded Of Hall the
st lf S s9sSst
statement 70 presence h lawyer that
slwAys usual 10 collect both parties state
which knowledge Of his business aud the law
would have be untrue. The defendant
appears 10 have respect the position Of
the plaintiff he asked bis lawyer previous to the demand
defendant hsd anything do with the plain
Ti that the time that the plaintiff presented bis BILL
and the titles the respective properties passed. there wa no
oe understanding the part Of the defendant That the plaintiff
acting this transaction lis agen, exclusively for him
We held In Watkins s Consa that broker who effects sale OF
double commissions by separate agree
buyer and The seller; that the empoymerts In
sble with each other and that II follows OF
entering into separate agreements this incompatible and conflicting
character viii the vendor and the that the broker nreies him
s receiving commission from either the sgent either
ami cannot such transaction the Of both without TIER
and knowledge We held Rgsey Murray that
applied well exchange Of real effected by broker
upon ordinary le Of properly for certain Irce that whether
payment made in land mmatea and that the same
rule apply The employment Of broker by the owner said
former colleague Judge graham to effect pnrchsse sale upoa
the advantageous 10 the who him. lie
this and the time render similar the other party.
In the other OF the himself and
that either exchange of property broker
can negotiate for the benest Of both"
This substantially present The plaintiff this
the exchange property between Hull and the iefn and
carried intention and expectation Of obtaining
on for both shown By bis evidence be has
ded thing from either for be
that relation the broker Of other The judgment should
be reversed
Judges ], F. DAILY and La rremore cOncuTcd.