Case Name: GLOVER v. DUFFY et al.
Court: New York Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-11-24
Citations: 112 N.Y.S. 1099
Docket Number: 
Parties: GLOVER v. DUFFY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 112
Pages: 1099–1099

Head Matter:
GLOVER v. DUFFY et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 24, 1908.)
Brokers (§ 54*) — Employment to Obtain Loan — Commissions — When Earned.
One employed to secure a loan of a specified amount on specified terms must, to recover his commissions, show that he secured one willing to make the loan on the terms specified; and proofs that he secured ope willing to make the loan for a less time is insufficient.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. §§ 75-81; Dec. Dig. § 54.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District. •
Action by Rettie Glover against John G. Duffy and another, doing business as Kammerlohr & Duffy. From a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
D. Theodore Kelly, for appellants.
George B. Hayes, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought to recover commissions for procuring a loan. After negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendants, the defendants agreed to accept a loan of $29,000, at 5% per cent, for the period of five years. The evidence shows that the plaintiff secured a lender willing to make this loan at 5% per cent, for three years. The defendants rejected this proposition. Under these circumstances it is evident that the plaintiff failed to establish his right to recover. In order to recover, it was necessary for the plaintiff to show that he had secured some one willing to make the loan on the terms offered by the defendants. The terms on which the defendants offered to take the loan required that the loan should be for five years and the plaintiff did not earn his commissions by offering them a loan for three years.
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.