Case Name: HASELL v. BUCKLEY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-22
Citations: 103 N.Y.S. 377
Docket Number: 
Parties: HASELL v. BUCKLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 103
Pages: 377–381

Head Matter:
(118 App. Div. 356)
HASELL v. BUCKLEY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 22, 1907.)
1. Appeal—Law of the Case—Construction of Former Judgment.
While an interlocutory judgment, affirmed on a former appeal, is the law of the case, yet, there being some ambiguity as to its provisions, it will not be interpreted so as to do manifest injustice.
[Ed. Note.-—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, § 4358.]
2. Contracts—Construction—Subject-Matter.
Where plaintiff’s testator, being the purchasing agent of corporations, transferred such business to defendant, on the agreement that he should be paid half the commissions received by defendant during continuance of such contract as testator might succeed in inducing the corporations to ente; into with defendant to act as purchasing agent for them, and through testator’s efforts the corporations designated defendant as purchasing agent temporarily, and the employment so continued without any specific contract till some time after testator’s death, when a special contract was entered into by such corporations with defendant, such latter contract was not procured by testator, so as to entitle his estate to a-share of the commissions earned under ‘it.
Appeal from Order Entered on Report of Referee.
Action by Adelia A. Hasell, individually and as executrix of Bently D. Hasell, deceased, against Leander J. Buckley, individually and doing business under the firm name of E- J. Buckley & Co. Erom a judgment for plaintiff entered on the decision of a referee, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J„ and McLAUGHEIN, INGRAHAM, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
John A. Straley, for appellant.
H. H. Snedeker, for respondent.

Opinion:
HOUGHTON, J.
The appeal is from a final judgment in an action for an accounting respecting commission's received by defendant as purchasing agent for certain Cuban railway companies.
Plaintiff's testator was purchasing agent for these corporations, and on the 12th day of March, 1900, he transferred such business to defendant on the agreement that he should be paid one-half the com missions received by the defendant during the continuance of such contract as the plaintiff's testator might succeed in inducing the companies to enter into with defendant to act as purchasing agent for them. Plaintiff's testator died shortly after this agreement was made, but through his efforts the companies designated defendant as purchasing agent temporarily, and the employment so continued without any specific contract until April 9, 1903, when a special contract was entered into by them with defendant. With this latter contract plaintiff's testator, of course, had nothing to do, aside from the fact that he had before his death brought the defendant and the companies together, and had induced the companies to enter into relations with defendant of an indefinite character, which had continued until the specific contract was entered into. On the 19th of December, 1904, the plaintiff obtained an interlocutory judgment for an accounting, which, in connection with the findings upon which it was based, might be construed as adjudging that the plaintiff was entitled to an accounting for one-half of all commissions received by defendant from the Cuban companies from March 12, 1900, to the time when defendant ceased to act as purchasing agent for them, however long that might be, and by whatever contract with them he should so act. On appeal to this court that judgment was affirmed without opinion. 104 App. Div. 630, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1134.
Of course, under ordinary conditions, an interlocutory judgment passed upon by this court establishes the law of this court respecting the final judgment. Where, however, as in the present case, there is some ambiguity as to its provisions, it will not, and ought not to, be interpreted so as to do manifest injustice.
The contract of April 9, 1903, not having been procured by the plaintiff's testator, the accounting should have proceeded only to the date of that contract. The allowing to plaintiff of one-half the net commissions earned by defendant up to that time is a liberal interpretation of defendant's contract, and all that should be permitted.
Prom the account filed on the hearing before the referee there can be no difficulty in ascertaining the amount of the net commissions earned by defendant up to April 9, 1903, and the judgment should be modified by allowing such commissions to that time onty, and by striking out the provisions of the judgment that plaintiff -is entitled to any accounting subsequent to that date, and, as so modified, the judgment should be affirmed, without costs. All concur.