From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cæsar Misch Inc. v. Mosheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 10, 1908
123 App. Div. 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

January 10, 1908.

Solomon De Young, for the appellant.

Franklin Bien, for the respondent.


The plaintiff was the owner of a stock of goods and store fixtures, and the defendant was an auctioneer. The defendant submitted to plaintiff the following written proposition:

"We hereby advance you $5,000 on stock and fixtures contained in premises 241 6th Avenue. Same to be sold at public auction. All over and above the sum of $5,500 realized at public sale on stock and fixtures we will divide in equal parts. All expenses to be paid by J.E. Mosheim Co. Stock and fixtures guaranteed to bring not less than Six thousand ($6,000) dollars, and any deficiency below this amount will be paid by us." This was accepted and signed by both parties.

The amount realized upon the sale was $6,201.05. The defendant tendered to plaintiff one-half of the amount over $5,500, insisting that was all plaintiff was entitled to. The plaintiff claimed that it was entitled to not only such one-half, but also to the $500 necessary in addition to the $5,000 which had been paid, to make the $5,500 stipulated by the contract.

On trial the court directed a verdict for plaintiff on the basis of such one-half only, interpreting the contract as giving to defendant the $500 as well as one-half the surplus over $5,500.

We cannot agree with the interpretation placed upon the contract by the trial court. The contract is very plain. The defendant did not buy the goods. He simply sold them for the plaintiff. He guaranteed that under his conduct of the sale the goods should bring a certain amount, and made advancements before the sale was begun. For compensation for his services and expenses in conducting the sale, he agreed that he should take one-half of all the goods brought above $5,500. Up to that amount all the proceeds belonged to the plaintiff absolutely. There can be no question as to the interpretation of so plain a contract.

The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

PATTERSON, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT and LAMBERT, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Cæsar Misch Inc. v. Mosheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 10, 1908
123 App. Div. 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Cæsar Misch Inc. v. Mosheim

Case Details

Full title:CÆSAR MISCH INCORPORATION, Appellant, v . JULIUS E. MOSHEIM, Doing…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 10, 1908

Citations

123 App. Div. 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
107 N.Y.S. 1092

Citing Cases

Irwin v. Pacific Fruit Produce Co.

In the same case, the court held that a guaranty of a minimum return was not inconsistent with a contract of…