Case Name: Ernest E. Slocum, Respondent, v. Walter M. Ostrander, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-12-09
Citations: 141 A.D. 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ernest E. Slocum, Respondent, v. Walter M. Ostrander, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
Ernest E. Slocum, Respondent, v. Walter M. Ostrander, Appellant.
First Department,
December 9, 1910.
Principal and agent — broker’s action for commissions — facts justifying recovery.
Where a broker eriiployed' to effect an exchange of lands has procured an enforcible contract executed by his principal, he is entitled to recover his commissions although the contract was never performed and one of .the parties was not in a position to perform it, ■
Ingbaham, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissented, with memorandum.
Appeal by the defendant, Walter 3Vf. Ostrander, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric-of the'county of Mew York on the 19tli day of March, 1910, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 21st day of March, 1910, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Myles Higgins, for the appellant.
A. Delos Hneeland, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Milleb, J.:
The defendant entered into an enforcible contract with one Edward H. Ryan to' exchange certain real properties. The plaintiff claims to have been the broker in the transaction and brings this action for commissions. This appeal is from a judgment in his favor entered on a verdict óf the jury.
The questions whether the plaintiff was employed, whether he was the procuring cause of the making of the contract, and whether' there was a contemporary oral agreement, the performance of which Was' a condition precedent to the taking effect Of the written contract, Were questions of fact, and as such were properly submitted to the jury.
The plaintiff then has procured an enforcible contract to be made. It is immaterial that the contract was never performed or that one of the parties was not in a position to perform it. (Alt v. Doscher, 102 App. Div. 344; affd., 186 N. Y. 566; Kalley v. Baker, 132 id. 1.)
The judgment and order should he affirmed, with costs.
McLaughlin and Laúghlin, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissented.