Case Name: James A. Fisher, Resp't, v. Clarence B. Smith, App'lt
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-04-25
Citations: 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 309
Docket Number: 
Parties: James A. Fisher, Resp’t, v. Clarence B. Smith, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 46
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
James A. Fisher, Resp’t, v. Clarence B. Smith, App’lt.
(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,
Filed April 25, 1892.)
Verdict—Conflict of evidence.
In an action for commissions as broker, plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient, if believed, to establish-his claim, and defendant’s was in direct conflict with it. Held, that the verdict in favor of plaintiff was conclusive as to the facts and would not be disturbed.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict.
W. J. Gaynor, for app’lt; E. B. Barnum, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Osborne, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover four hundred dollars for commissions alleged to have been earned by him as a broker in procuring a purchaser for certain real estate of which defendant was part owner. Plaintiff, on the trial, testified that a special agreement was made with him by defendant to pay the sum claimed in case plaintiff obtained a purchaser for the property at a price which defendant fixed, and he also proved that he procured purchasers for the property ready, able and willing to-pay the defendant's price, and that defendant refused to sell at the price which he had named. Defendant denied the special agreement, and also claimed that he had never fixed a price at which he would be willing to sell. Plaintiff had a verdict, and from the judgment entered thereon and the order denying a motion for a' hew trial defendant appeals.
We think that the issues were properly submitted to the jury for their determination, and, after a careful perusal of the evidence, we can see no reason for interfering with the verdict. Plaintiff's evidence and that adduced on his behalf, if uncontradicted, established his claim; defendant's evidence was in direct conflict with that of the plaintiff, and the questions at issue between the parties were determined by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. The charge of the learned trial judge is not printed in-the case on appeal; no exception appears thereto, and we may, therefore, assume that the jury were properly instructed as to the-law applicable to the case. The jury having found in favor of the plaintiff on the matters of fact in dispute, we think that the verdict should be upheld.
Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.
Yan Wyck, J., concurs.