Case Name: DU BOIS et al. v. MULLINS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-02-18
Citations: 140 N.Y.S. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: DU BOIS et al. v. MULLINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 140
Pages: 1–3

Head Matter:
DU BOIS et al. v. MULLINS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
February 18, 1913.)
Bbokebs (§ 71 )—Commissions—When Earned.
Where an owner, requesting a broker to obtain a loan, signed a written application directing the broker to procure a loan for a specified sum to cover' all expenses, and thereafter he refused to take the loan, and notified the broker to discontinue negotiations, the broker could recover his commission, and the expenses incurred to the time of the notice, but not for the full amount specified, which covered all expenses as well as commission.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 56; Dec. Dig. § 71.*]
Lehman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Action by Charles A. Du Bois and another, doing business under the firm name and style of Du Bois & Taylor, against Kathleen L. Mullins. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued January term, 1913, before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and PAGE, JJ.
James E. Bennet, of New York City, for appellant.
William C. Daly, of New York City, for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PAGE, J.
The action was to recover for the agreed value of the _ plaintiffs' services as brokers. The defendant requested the plaintiffs to obtain a loan for her of $1,500 upon the security of a second mortgage upon vacant lots in the borough of Brooklyn. Mr. Du Bois inspected the property, and on his recommendation his wife agreed to make the loan from her separate estate. On December 22, 1911, Mr. Taylor reported to the defendant that he had obtained a person who would make the loan and that the expense would be $275, to- cover everything. Thereupon a written application for the loan, upon plaintiff's blank, was signed by the defendant, that stated the terms of the loan, with a diagram of the property upon which the mortgage would be a lien, and concluded with these words:
"You are hereby authorized to procure for me the above loan, and I agree to pay to Messrs. Du Bois & Taylor the sum of two hundred and seventy-five ($275) dollars, to cover all expenses."
On January 5, 1912, the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs, requesting them that, if they had not already had the title searched, not to have it done, as she had received a remittance from home, and would not require the'loan. And again, on January 8th, the defendant wrote to-the plaintiffs:
"Please do not go to any further trouble or expense in the matter than already incurred. Kindly discontinue negotiations for a loan, as I shall not require it."
To which plaintiffs replied:
"We have instructed the Lawyers' Title Insurance Company to discontinue. To say the least, your action has placed us in a very embarrassing position, and we shall certainly look to you for expenses, as per signed agreement."
Upon these facts the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their commission and such expenses as they had incurred when they were notified that defendant would not take the loan, but not for the full amount specified. Finck v. Menke, 31 Misc. Rep. 748, 64 N. Y. Supp. 38. The $275 was to cover all expenses, and not for the commission alone. The estimated expenses for searching the title and closing the loan had only been partially incurred.
The court below gave judgment for the full amount. For this error the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
SEABURY, J., concurs.