Case Name: George V. Morton, Appellant, v. Isabella B. Petit, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-04
Citations: 133 A.D. 377
Docket Number: 
Parties: George V. Morton, Appellant, v. Isabella B. Petit, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 377–379

Head Matter:
George V. Morton, Appellant, v. Isabella B. Petit, Respondent.
Second Department,
June 4, 1909.
Pleading — action to recover commissions — notice of acceptance.
A complaint in an action. to recover commissions for procuring a loan, which alleges that the plaintiff procured one S. “ to accept said application,” is sufficient, and it is not necessary to allege the evidence by which the acceptance is to be proved.
Rich and Woodward, JJ., dissented with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, George Y. Morton, from an interlocutory judgment of the County Court of Queens county in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 24th day of December, 1908, upon the decision of the court sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Robert W. Bernard, for the appellant.
Henry A. Sayer, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
The complaint is that the defendant employed the plaintiff " to procure within four days an acceptance of a certain application made by defendant for a loan of $650 ", and that within the said time the plaintiff " procured one George W. Short to accept said application ". The contention is that this is insufficient for lack .of an alie gation that the defendant was notified by the plaintiff of such acceptance, and the court below so held. ' The complaint is not required to allege the evidence by which the acceptance is to be proved, but only the conclusion of fact that the application was accepted. There could be no acceptance excepting by notice in some way to the defendant, but it does not follow that such notice has to be alleged in- the complaint. The method of acceptance is not a matter of pleading but -of evidence. It is the office of a -pleading to allege the ultimate facts to be established, and not the evidence or facts to establish them. The cases cited to Uphold the decision below are not cases of pleading at all, but of evidence.
The judgthent. should be reversed.
Rich, J., read for affirmance, with whom Woodward, J., concurred.