Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
Willard Divoll, Respondent, v. Henry Henken, Appellant
48 N.Y. 672·New York Commission of Appeals·1872·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Willard Divoll, Respondent, v. Henry Henken, Appellant.
(Argued September 28, 1871;
decided January term, 1872.)
The complaint in this action alleged an agreement on the part of defendant to pay plaintiff a commission of two and a half per cent upon a purchase price, for procuring a purchaser for defendant’s farm, which plaintiff did. Hpon the trial, the evidence, received without objection, showed an agreement to pay the commission upon the price of the property sold. This included a large amount of personal property as well as the farm. There was no suggestion upon the trial of variance between the evidence and the complaint. Plaintiff recovered the per centage upon the whole sale. Held, the objection could not be raised upon appeal, and if raised upon the trial it would have been the duty of the referee to have amended the complaint.
Scrnwel Hand for the appellant.
Ira H. Tuthill for the Respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Leonard and Earl, CO., read for affirmance.
All concur, Lott, Oh. 0., not sitting. Judgment affirmed, with costs.