Legal Opinion

Smith v. . Goldsborough

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 13, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

•Cardozo, J.

In June, 1914, plaintiffs with one Jewell, to whose rights they have succeeded by assignment, were employed by Richmond Levering and by Richmond Levering'& Co., Incorporated, to sell oil lands in Mexico. The commission was to be five per cent of the purchase price. Plaintiffs and Jewell enlisted the aid of the defendant, and assigned to him three-fourths of the agreed commission, retaining one-fourth only for themselves. During the summer of 1914 various projects of sale were initiated and abandoned. Toward the end of September, howéver, there was developed, as the result of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Patrick v. . MetcalfNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
  2. Butterworth v. . GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
  3. Reynolds v. Ætna Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  4. Peckham v. . Van WagenenNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  5. Decker v. . SaltzmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1874

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Markworth v. State Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
  2. Consolidated Cut Stone Co. v. SeidenbachSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
  3. Carlin Trading Corp. v. BennettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API