From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feist & Feist, Inc. v. Taub

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 15, 1928
143 A. 335 (N.J. 1928)

Opinion

Submitted May 26, 1928 —

Decided October 15, 1928.

On appeal from the Essex County Circuit Court.

For the appellant, Koehler Augenblick and Bernard Freedman.

For the respondent, Philip J. Schotland.


This suit was brought to recover a broker's real estate commission. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,092.35. The agreement authorizing the plaintiff to sell the property Nos. 251-53-55 Belleville avenue, Newark, was in writing, dated September 20th, 1926. The agreement provided for an authorization to sell the property, $1,000 at signing and sealing the agreements of sale, "a commission of three and one-half on the first twenty thousand [$20,000] dollars of the purchase price, and two and one-half on the balance thereof." The authorization null and void after September 22d, at six P.M., 1926.

"I hereby agree to purchase property on terms hereby mentioned.

Signed MARGUERITE SPIELMAN."

The liability of the defendant is controlled by such cases as Hinds v. Henry, 36 N.J.L. 328, that case holds the right of a broker to commissions is complete when he has procured a purchaser able and willing to conclude a bargain on the terms on which the broker was authorized to sell. Steinberg v. Mindlin, 96 N.J.L. 206.

The defendant filed ten grounds for a reversal of the judgment. These points are argued under five heads in the appellant's brief. They are without merit as grounds of reversal. They call for no extended discussion. They all refer to trial errors; such as, error by the trial court is not directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; admitting in evidence a letter marked Exhibit P 4, dated September 27th, 1926; striking out the first separate defense of the defendant's answer; overruling two questions to a witness J. Leslie Stevens and three questions to the witness Margaret Spielman. These latter questions had been substantially answered. Overruling these questions was not error by the trial court.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the Essex County Circuit Court is affirmed.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Feist & Feist, Inc. v. Taub

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 15, 1928
143 A. 335 (N.J. 1928)
Case details for

Feist & Feist, Inc. v. Taub

Case Details

Full title:FEIST FEIST, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT, v. ISAAC TAUB, APPELLANT

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Oct 15, 1928

Citations

143 A. 335 (N.J. 1928)
143 A. 335

Citing Cases

Winter v. Toldt

By virtue of an agreement with the seller, in the absence of a special agreement, the broker earns his…

Lippincott v. Content

The principle is well established that an agent becomes entitled to the commission when he has procured a…