December, 1924.
Judgment and order reversed upon the law, and complaint unanimously dismissed, with costs. In our opinion the evidence presented on the trial was not sufficient to support the finding of the jury that plaintiff's assignor was employed by the defendant. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.
Full title:ANTHONY NIESEN, Respondent, v. CHARLES GALEWSKI, Appellant
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Dec 1, 1924
Double commissions are not the natural or probable consequence of a brokerage exchange contract and are not,…
Duross Co. v. EvansIt is the general rule that a prospective purchaser of real estate is not liable for failure to accept an…