Case Name: CLARK v. CHILTON PAINT CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-06-30
Citations: 111 N.Y.S. 655
Docket Number: 
Parties: CLARK v. CHILTON PAINT CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 111
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
CLARK v. CHILTON PAINT CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 30, 1908.)
Principal and Agent—Actions for Services—Evidence—Sufficiency.
In an action by an agent for commissions for services, evidence held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.
[Ed. Note.—Eor cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Principal and Agent, § 237.]
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.
Action by Percy Clark against the Chilton Paint Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GIEDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
Rounds, Hatch, Dillingham & Debevoise (Thomas M. Debevoise and Francis E. Neagle, of counsel), for appellant.
Kearny & Davis (Thomas Kearny and Pierpont Davis, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.
The evidence of the plaintiff, which the court had a right to believe, shows that plaintiff was hired by defendant to introduce defendant to the naval authorities, and defendant agreed to pay a commission on all sales resulting from such introduction, and that certain sales did so result. Defendant admits employing plaintiff, but claims that plaintiff had to render additional services besides such introduction. The court gave judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The issue is essentially a question of fact, with sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the trial justice. The errors of law are not so serious as to call for a reversal.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
SEABURY, J., concurs.