From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Polo v. Scheidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1921
195 App. Div. 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1921)

Opinion

January, 1921.


Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. At the close of plaintiff's case the evidence showed a hiring of the plaintiff as broker, the procuring of a purchaser who finally agreed on terms with defendant, that defendant called in his lawyer to prepare the contract, that the lawyer suggested that as a commission was to be paid the purchase price should be raised so that the purchaser should really pay the commission and that defendant then insisted on increasing his price. We think plaintiff made out a prima facie case, and that it was error to nonsuit. Having procured a purchaser who agreed to defendant's terms the defendant had no right arbitrarily to refuse to carry out his agreement. ( Fuller v. Bradley Contracting Co., 183 App. Div. 6; affd., 229 N.Y. 605.) Mills, Rich, Putnam, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Polo v. Scheidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1921
195 App. Div. 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1921)
Case details for

Polo v. Scheidt

Case Details

Full title:ANDREA POLO, Appellant, v. JOHN H. SCHEIDT, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1921

Citations

195 App. Div. 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1921)

Citing Cases

Graff v. Billet

" To construe the clause in question to refer only to default in closing title is to ignore case law holding…