Case Name: BERNSTEIN, Respondent, v. HASHARE, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-12
Citations: 74 N.Y.S. 1120
Docket Number: 
Parties: BERNSTEIN, Respondent, v. HASHARE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 74
Pages: 1120–1120

Head Matter:
BERNSTEIN, Respondent, v. HASHARE, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December, 1901.)
Action by Isaac Bernstein against Isadore Hashare.
Joseph Rosenszweig, for appellant.
Marks & Marks (Joseph Blscher, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
McADAM, P. J.
The plaintiff's assignor, Abraham Rosenberg, on being introduced to the defendant, was asked by him whether he knew any business suitable for him, as he had a few thousand dollars to invest. Rosenberg said he had such a business in mind, and knew of a man who wanted a partner with means, but that the defendant would have to pay him $100 commission for his services. The parties thereupon proceeded to No. 26 Pitt street, where one Greeman and another had a business as iron workers. Rosenberg introduced the defendant to Greeman, and as a result of the introduction a partnership was formed between the two. There can be no doubt about the employment of Rosenberg by the defendant and that he accomplished the object of such employment. The only serious dispute is as to the rate of compensation, the defendant claiming that he first agreed upon $25, and afterwards upon $50, which he paid. Rosenberg claimed that $100 was the only price agreed upon, and at all times demanded by him,- and that $50 was paid on account thereof, leaving $50 due, for which sum the justice awarded the plaintiff a judgment. The assignor certainly performed valuable services to the defendant, and the only issue seriously contested was whether the agreed price was $50 or $100. The justice found according to the plaintiff's contention, and it is impossible for us to determine that he was bound to decide the other way. The question, put to the witness Greeman, as to whether Rosenberg had tried to borrow money from the defendant, was properly ruled out as calling for a conclusion, not a conversation, and as incompetent, because no time had been fixed, either in the question or the offer that accompanied it. Rosenberg had transferred his claim on March 5, 1901. What he said or did after that could not prejudice his assignee, the plaintiff. The assignment is in legal form, and passed the cause of action to the plaintiff. Sheridan v. Mayor, etc., 68 N. Y. 80; Bedford v. Sherman, 68 Hun, 322, 22 N. Y. Supp. 892; Toplitz v. Bridge Co., 20 Misc. Rep. 578, 46 N. Y. Supp. 418; Costello v. Herbst, 18 Misc. Rep. 180, 41 N. Y. Supp. 574. There are no other exceptions in the case that require comment. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.