Brink v. Goodelle
New York Supreme Court
Action' by Isaac Brink against George G. Goodelle. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby the defendant, a real estate broker, was authorized to procure a purchaser for certain property on certain terms, and to enter into a written contract in the name of the plaintiff with any such purchaser upon such terms.
Read the full summary
Action' by Isaac Brink against George G. Goodelle. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby the defendant, a real estate broker, was authorized to procure a purchaser for certain property on certain terms, and to enter into a written contract in the name of the plaintiff with any such purchaser upon such terms. Defendant thereafter procured a purchaser, who entered into a contract to purchase somewhat different from that authorized, and paid him $200 for plaintiff as a first payment. This contract was entirely satisfactory to plaintiff. Subsequently the…
1Opinion of the CourtHorton, J.
I have carefully studied the stipulation and the exhibits, as well as the pleadings in this case. I have also carefully examined the briefs of the respective parties. I have not the time at my command, nor is it necessary, to make a statement of the facts submitted.
The only question involved is whether the defendant earned, and was entitled to receive his commissions under the contract made with the plaintiff. In my judgment, the rule laid down by the court in the case of Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504, 33 N. E. 599, 20 L. R. A. 398, must govern, and is as follows:
“The general rule is that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Gilder v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Coleman's Ex'r v. MeadeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
- Mooney v. . ElderNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Kalley v. . BakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.