Case Name: William J. Boyle, Resp't, v. Emory M. Van Tassell, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-06-02
Citations: 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 284
Docket Number: 
Parties: William J. Boyle, Resp’t, v. Emory M. Van Tassell, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 31
Pages: 284–284

Head Matter:
William J. Boyle, Resp’t, v. Emory M. Van Tassell, App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed June 2, 1890.)
Brokers—Commissions.
The court below, on disputed testimony, found that an agreement was made by defendant, through his agent H., with plaintiff that if the latter procured a purchaser for the boiler in question he would pay him a percentage of the purchase price; that plaintiff, acting in good faith, procured a purchaser for the boiler and that the agency of H. was established. Held, that a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the commissions would not be disturbed.
Appeal from judgment of the eleventh district court
James Hilihouse, for app’lt; W. L. Snyder, for resp’t

Opinion:
Larremore, Ch. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in plaintiff's favor, for commissions as a broker or dealer in machinery. It is shown by the evidence that the plaintiff brought a customer who bought the boiler in question, for which the defendant received $800. Plaintiff testified that the defendant, through his manager, Hilihouse, agreed that if plaintiff found a purchaser for the boiler he would pay him ten per cent, of the purchase price. The sale was consummated, and for a refusal on the part of the defendant to pay such commission, this action was brought.
The main question in this case is one of fact as to the authority of Hilihouse to bind the defendant. It is a well-settled question of practice that an appellate court will not disturb a judgment rendered upon disputed facts. The court below has found upon tthe whole testimony that the agreement was made, plaintiff did act in good faith, procured a customer, and defendant got the fruits of his labor and that the agency was established. Leslie v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Co., 63 N. Y., 27 ; Dunn v. Star Fire Ins. Co., 19 W. Dig., 531; Warburton v. Camp, 112 N. Y., 683 ; 21 N. Y. State Rep., 853; Mayer v. Dean, 115 N. Y., 556 ; 26 N. Y. State Rep., 375.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Bischoff, J., concurs.