
    George T. Meislahn, Resp’t, v. Adam J. Englehard et al. App’lts.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 7, 1892.)
    
    Bbokb.es—Commissions.
    Evidence sufficient to carry action for broker’s commissions to the jury.
    
      Appeal by defendants from judgment entered against them on verdict, rendered by jury, and from order denying new trial.
    
      Malcolm Campbell, for resp’t; Rose & Putzel, for app’lts.
   Van Wyck, J.

There are no exceptions by appellants except to the denial of motion to nonsuit at close of plaintiff’s case, and to dismiss on the merits after defendants had rested, and the case does not contain a certificate that it contains all the evidence, and so it follows that if the evidence and the legal inferences therefrom are sufficient to carry the case to the jury, the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed. The action is to recover a brokerage of five per cent for causing the sale of defendant’s saloon for $15,750. It was conceded that plaintiff was entitled to this commission of $787.50, if to anything, but liability by defendants was denied. The evidence for plaintiff shows that he took the purchaser to the saloon and introduced him to one partner, and he informed him that he had brought him to buy the saloon, and the purchaser then offered first $10,000 and afterwards $15,000, this offer to stand until Monday night; that this partner refused to accept until he had consulted his co-partner, and bade the purchaser and plaintiff return; that at the appointed time and place both partners, the purchaser and plaintiff met, and the negotiations were renewed by plaintiff, who said the purchaser would pay $15,500, but this the purchaser refused to pay at first, but finally consented, and plaintiff testified: “ Then I had a conversation with defendant Englehard, and he said to me ‘ You see Quirk (the purchaser) again, and see if he won’t go $250; tell him I will split the difference with him.’ So I went out and saw Mr. Quirk, and told him what Mr. Englehard said. Mr. Quirk said $250 would not stand in the way of his getting the saloon. Then I saw Mr. Englehard and told him what Mr. Quirk said, and I asked him what he thought of me as a broker, and he said I was the best go-between he ever saw.’’ And Mr. Englehard, on cross-examination, was asked:

Q. “ Mr. Meislahn didn’t propose to buy this store as principal? ”

A. “ He said the first night‘ my client,’ referring to Mr. Quirk.” The evidence as shown by the record was ample to carry the case to the jury, and the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

McCarthy, J., concurs.  