Legal Opinion

Fay v. Moehlenpah

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1930Published

1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.

This action is brought to recover commissions paid to the defendant in reliance upon her representation that she was acting as broker when the fact was that she herself was the principal. The first defense alleges, inter alla, that it was the plaintiffs who requested and induced the defendant to become the purchaser. If this allegation be true, the defendant would seem to have a good defense to the action. The fact that the defense might be provable under a general denial does not necessarily require that it be stricken out as insufficient (Staten Island M. R. R. Co. v. Hinchcliffe, 170 N. Y.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Staten Island Midland Railroad v. HinchliffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Gabriel v. GrahamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
  3. Krauz v. AgnewAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
  4. Cooley v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API