Contracts · MBE-tested
John R. Davidson and David Kraus, Respondents, v. Grace H. Howell, Appellant
160 A.D. 918·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1914·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
John R. Davidson and David Kraus, Respondents, v. Grace H. Howell, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 17th day of June, 1913, denying a motion for j udgment on the pleadings.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
[MAJORITY]
Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin,. Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Ingraham, P. J., dissented.
[DISSENT — Ingraham, P. J. (dissenting):]
Ingraham, P. J. (dissenting):
I dissent upon the ground that the plaintiffs procured a purchaser and, as part of the contract of purchase, agreed that “ neither of them shall be entitled to any commission whatsoever, unless title passes hereunder and this contract consummated.” The answer alleges that the contract never was consummated, that no title ever passed, and, therefore, upon the express condition of their employment, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.