Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of the People of the State of New York by Albert Conway, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property and Liquidate the Business of the Capital City Surety Company
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1933-09-25
Citations: 149 Misc. 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of the People of the State of New York by Albert Conway, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property and Liquidate the Business of the Capital City Surety Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of the People of the State of New York by Albert Conway, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property and Liquidate the Business of the Capital City Surety Company.
Supreme Court, New York County,
September 25, 1933.
John J. O’Connor [Kermit F. Kip and Aaron Holman of counsel], for the claimant I. Newton Brozan, for the motion.
John M. Downes [Robert N. Rose, Samuel Kosman and John M. Downes of counsel], for the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, opposed.

Opinion:
Frankenthaler, J.
In the court's opinion the decision in Fox Co. v. Wohl (255 N. Y. 268) was intended by the Court of Appeals to apply only to exchange transactions involving the payment of double commissions and was not meant to overrule the line of authorities sustaining a recovery of a single commission by a broker from one who employed him under circumstances such as those presented by cases of which Pease & Elliman, Inc., v. Gladwin Realty Co. (216 App. Div. 421) is typical. It is true that the Court of Appeals referred with disapproval to the case last cited and similar decisions, but the opinion indicates (pp. 271, 272) that the Pease & Elliman case and the others were treated as exchange cases. A reading of the record fails to sustain the claim that the referee's decision is contrary to the evidence. The other points raised are overruled. The motion to confirm the referee's report is accordingly granted. Settle order.