Case Name: Morris Levy, Resp't, v. Elizabeth E. Kottman, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05-18
Citations: 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 403
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morris Levy, Resp’t, v. Elizabeth E. Kottman, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 59
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
Morris Levy, Resp’t, v. Elizabeth E. Kottman, App’lt.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed May 18, 1894.)
Appeal—Findings of fact.
The finding of the jury upon questions of fact, which have been submitted to them under proper instructions, is conclusive on the appellate court.
L. S. Goebel, for app’lt; J. L. Weinberg, for resp’t. ■

Opinion:
McCarthy, J.
This is an action for broker's commission under employment to procure a purchaser for real estate. The complaint sets up employment of plaintiff to sell No. 264 Delancey street in the city of New York for the usual commission of one per cent. That he procured a purchaser who paid to the ' defendant $50 on the price of $25,500 for the parcel. That the plaintiff earned his commission of $255. The"answer denied the employment of the plaintiff, that he procured a purchaser, that the purchaser agreed to buy, that he paid $50 on account of the purchase price ; but alleges that she received $50 on June 5th 1892 from a stranger for the option to buy the property on the next day, but that the stranger never came back to complete the sale, and pleads conspiracy and collusion between the purchaser and broker to defraud her out of $205 the amount being the difference between the commission sued for and the $50 she admitted that she received. The evidence sufficiently shows the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant's husband, and her authority and ratification of the same. There is also evidence of the procuring of the purchaser by the plaintiff and his ability to cany out the contract. These being questions of fact and the same having been submitted to the jury under proper instruction, and they having found for the plaintiff it is conclusive on us.
We find no error and the j udgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Ehrlich, C. J., and Yan Wyck, J., concur.