Case Name: YOUNGMAN v. NORTH ELECTRIC CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-02-20
Citations: 146 N.Y.S. 69
Docket Number: 
Parties: YOUNGMAN v. NORTH ELECTRIC CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 146
Pages: 69–73

Head Matter:
(160 App. Div. 758)
YOUNGMAN v. NORTH ELECTRIC CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
February 20, 1914.)
1. Brokers (§ 52 )—Performance of Contract.
Under a contract by which plaintiff’s assignor agreed to bring defendant and another together so that they could negotiate for the sale and purchase of patent rights owned by defendant, which provided that assignor should be paid a special commission “if a sale is made,” assignor was entitled to a commission if a sale was actually made after he brought the parties together.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 73; Dec. Dig. § 52. ]
2. Brokers (§ 57 )—Performance of Contract.
Where plaintiff was entitled to a commission under a contract with defendant, “if a sale was made” of patent rights after plaintiff had brought defendant and another together for negotiations, that the sale made was in the form of a license, which, however, was practically a sale, would not prevent plaintiff from recovering commissions.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Brokers, Cent Dig. §§ 66, 67, 72; Dec. Dig. § 57. ]
Ingraham, P. J., and Hotchkiss, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Walter L. Youngman against the North Electric Company. From a judgment for defendant and an order denying a motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and judgment directed for plaintiff.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
Howard Taylor, of New York City, for appellant.
Merton E. Lewis, of Rochester, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
In my opinion the case was tried and submitted to the jury upon an entirely erroneous theory. That theory is illustrated by the following sentence from the charge of the court:
"This is what we ordinarily call a brokerage case—a case in which a broker sues for a commission. The law is that a broker is entitled to a commission for a transaction, provided the transaction be procured, as we call it, or concluded, as it may be, through his effort and during the time of his employment. That practically covers the real issue that you will have to determine. Was this transaction concluded through the efforts of Blr. Dukelow, and was it concluded during the time of his employment?"
As I read the evidence, this is in no wise an ordinary brokerage contract, because, while it is conceded that Mr. Dukelow was employed by defendant to render certain services, he was not employed, nor was he ever authorized to negotiate a sale. His authority and duty was apparently limited to negotiating between the parties and bringing them into a position where they could negotiate between themselves. Defendant owned patent rights for a device believed to be useful in telephony. A very obviously desirable, but apparently a very indifferent, customer was the American Telephone & Telegraph Company. The defendant's officers naturally desired to be brought into touch with that company, and plaintiff's assignor, owing to his personal relations with the vice president of the American Company, appeared able to bring the parties within negotiating distance of each other. This he did, and it was after he had done this that the contract was made to pay him a commission. That contract is evidenced by a letter which is not disputed. By it plaintiff's assignor was to be paid a special commission "if a sale is made," not if he affected a sale, because he was never put by defendant in a position to negotiate a sale—that matter was reserved by defendant's officers for their own management. Dukelow had then done all that he had apparently been employed to do—certainly all that he was asked or authorized to do. He had brought the parties together, and paved the way for the sale that was afterwards made. From that point there remained only to agree upon terms and price, and this the defendant kept in its own hands. Dukelow undoubtedly took the chance that no sale would be made. If it had not been, he would have been entitled to no commission. It was made, however, the condition of his contract was fulfilled, and he became entitled, by the very terms of the contract to his agreed commission.
That the sale in the end took the form of a license, which one of defendant's officers testified was "practically a sale" does not, as I think, affect plaintiff's right to recover.
In my opinion the plaintiff's motion for the direction of a verdict should have been granted. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff, with costs in this court and in the court below.
LAUGHLIN and CLARKE, JJ., concur.