Case Name: Charles B. Redhead et al., Appellants, v. The Parkway Driving Club, Respondent
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02
Citations: 7 Misc. 275
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles B. Redhead et al., Appellants, v. The Parkway Driving Club, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
Charles B. Redhead et al., Appellants, v. The Parkway Driving Club, Respondent.
(City Court of Brooklyn—General Term,
February, 1894.)
The members of a club appointed a committee to procure land for its use, and it was agreed that no one should receive a commission, and that; everything should be done for the benefit of the club. One of the committee, who negotiated for the land, induced the vendor to agree to pay a commission, which fact he concealed from the other members of the committee, and upon discovery claimed that he intended to give it to the club. In an action brought by such member and his partner, who had taken no part in the negotiations, to recover said commission from, the vendor, the club was interpleaded. Held, that the agreement inured to the benefit of the club and that it was entitled to said commission.
Appeal from judgment of the Special Term in favor of the defendant.
Hugo Hirsh, for appellant.
William J. Qaynor (Edward M. Grout and William E. >0. Mayer, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Clement, Ch. J.
The appellants are brokers in real estate in this city, and brought this action originally against James Burrill, who sold real property to the respondent, to recover $2,000 commissions on such sale. Hr. Burrill paid the money into court, and the respondent, who also claimed the money of Burrill, was interpleaded.
The findings of fact are amply sustained by the evidence. It appears from such findings that on March 17,1892, a number of gentlemen met at the Union League Club in this city to organize a driving club, and at such meeting a committee •of five was appointed to procure land for the use of such club. Suydam, one of the appellants, was. a member of the committee, and the members agreed among themselves that no one should receive a commission, and that everything was to be done for the benefit of the club. The plaintiff Suydam and II. D. Campbell, two of the committee, conducted negotiations with Mr. Burrill, and purchased of his wife a large tract of land, and Suydam induced. Burrill to agree to pay a commission of §2,000, and did not report to the committee that he was to get a commission, but concealed it. When it was found out by the committee, Suydam said he intended to give it to the club. The judge at Special Term has also found that Suydam was in the exclusive service of the defendant, and that Redhead had nothing to do with, the negotiations, except as he was brought in by his partner Suydam.
The conclusion arrived at by the learned judge who tried this case, that the respondent is entitled to the sum paid into court, is sound. ISTo authority need be cited to uphold the result; the bare statement of the facts is sufficient. Mr. Suydam agreed that if any commission was received it should go to the club. The law would imply such an agreement,, even if not expressed. Suydam stood in. a position of trust,, and if he made anything by reason of his position, the law would not allow him to retain it. Redhead knew that Suydam was a member of the committee, and Redhead and Suydam were never employed by Mr. Burrill or the committee. Redhead was simply brought into the matter by Suydam, and has no better standing in court. The claim of the plaintiffs is contrary to good morals and cannot prevail.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Van Wyck, J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.