Case Name: Brumfield v. The Pottier & Stymus Manufacturing Co.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-10
Citations: 1 Misc. 92
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brumfield v. The Pottier & Stymus Manufacturing Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 92–93

Head Matter:
Brumfield v. The Pottier & Stymus Manufacturing Co.
(City Court of New York—General Term,
October, 1892.)
If without the aid of a broker employed to sell or rent, the owner effects a sale or renting, the broker is entitled to no commission.
Where the evidence warrants a finding by the jury in plaintiff’s favor, that she was the procuring cause of the letting, the verdict should stand unless error was committed in the exclusion of testimony tending to prove that other agencies brought about'the result.
Evidence of conversations by defendants’ officers with persons in plaintiff’s absence was properly excluded as immaterial.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Brewster Kissam, for defendant (appellant).
Denison & Hall, for plaintiff (respondent).

Opinion:
Ehrlich, Ch. J.
The employment of a broker does not preclude the owner from making other efforts to sell or rent, and if without the broker a sale or renting is effected, the broker, as matter of course, gets nothing. The question at issue here was whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the letting, and the jury on the evidence found that she was, a finding which negatives the idea that any other agency co-operated to bring about the result. The evidence was sufficiently strong to warrant the finding made by the jury, and them verdict should stand unless error was committed in excluding testimony tending to prove that other agencies brought about the result finally reached. The trial judge did not exclude evidence of any fact tending to show what other brokers or persons did in the premises, or what they accom plished with reference to the letting for which brokerage was claimed. The evidence excluded was as to conversations with other persons in the absence of the plaintiff. What was said to them by the defendant's officers was immaterial. While what such other persons did (whether employed or not) in the way of bringing about the letting for which the plaintiff claims compensation was relevant — indeed might be controlling. The evidence excluded was not of this material-character, and its exclusion was not error requiring correction or a new trial.
It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed with costs.
McCarthy, J., concurs.
Judgment and order affirmed.