Legal Opinion
Platt v. Baldwin
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided April 15, 1886Published
1Opinion of the Court
McAdam, Ch. J.
A broker employed to sell land cannot recover compensation from both parties. Employment by one party is incompatible with employment by the other (Watkins v. Cousall, 1 E. D. Smith, 65; Vanderpeel v. Kearns, 2 Id. 170; Dunlap v. Richards, 2 Id. 181: Pugsley v. Murray, 4 Id. 245); and it makes no difference that the transaction is an exchange of lands, not a sale for cash (Pugsley v. Murray, supra; Duryea v. Lester, 75 N. Y. 442.; S. C., 8 Weekly Dig. 116). In the case last cited, the court of appeals held that where a broker employed to sell real estate acts for both buyer and…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Sussdorff v. . SchmidtNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Murray v. . BeardNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Torrey v. Bank of OrleansNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Claflin v. Farmers' & Citizens' Bank of Long IslandNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- New-York Central Ins. Co. v. . National Protection Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1856
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.