Case Name: MORTON v. PETIT
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-04
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 364
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORTON v. PETIT.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 364–366

Head Matter:
MORTON v. PETIT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 4, 1909.)
1. Pleading (§ 11 )—Office of Pleading.
It is the office of a pleading to allege the ultimate facts to be established, and not the evidence to establish them.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 31; Dec. Dig. § 11. ]
2. Brokers (§ 82 )—Commissions—Actions—'Complaint.
A complaint which alleges that defendant employed plaintiff to procure within "a specified time “an acceptance of a certain application made by defendant for a loan,” and that within the time plaintiff psocured a third person “to accept said application,” sufficiently alleges that defendant was notified of the acceptance, though it does not allege that the-determination of the third person was communicated to defendant, which, must be proved to justify a recovery.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Dec. Dig. § 82. ]
Rich and Woodward, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Queens County Court.
Action by George V. Morton against Isabella B. Petit. From an interlocutory judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it does not state ,fa.cts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, GAYNOR, BURR, and RICH, JJ.
Robert W. Bernard, for appellant,
Henry A. Sayer,-for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

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 allegation 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 óf evidence.
The judgment should be reversed.