Harrell v. Veith
City of New York Municipal Court
Appeal from judgment entered upon a dismissal of the complaint as to both defendants. The action was brought to recover commissions for the sale of certain real estate owned by the defendant, Joseph Veith. The plaintiff is a real estate' broker. His clerk, in January, 1887, called at the defendant’s residence, and there saw the defendant Maria M. Veith, and asked her whether •she was willing to sell the premises 37 East Seventh street, in this city.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment entered upon a dismissal of the complaint as to both defendants. The action was brought to recover commissions for the sale of certain real estate owned by the defendant, Joseph Veith. The plaintiff is a real estate' broker. His clerk, in January, 1887, called at the defendant’s residence, and there saw the defendant Maria M. Veith, and asked her whether •she was willing to sell the premises 37 East Seventh street, in this city. No definite answer was obtained, but at a subsequent interview she told the clerk that her husband said they would sell it if they could get…
1Opinion of the CourtNehrbas, J.
The complaint was properly dismissed as to the defendant Joseph Veith. No employment by him was shown. All the interviews were had with his wife, Maria, and he was present for the first time when the purchaser, Levy, was produced, and then he declined to sell at the price offered.
No authority was proved in the wife to bind her husband. Her mere statement that her husband would sell at a certain figure is not evidence that she was authorized to make him liable to pay commissions. Nor can it be said that a wife has any implied authority to bind her husband in the disposition of his real estate.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hart v. HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Harper v. GoodallNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1881