
    STEINMAN v. TULLY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    October 25, 1915.)
    Brokers ©=>84—Actions fob Compensation—Evidence.
    In the absence of a showing of agreement to pay commission and of employment of plaintiff by defendant, a broker is not entitled to recover a commission on sale of real estate.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. §§ 104, 105; Dec. Big. ©=>S4.]
    other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by Philip Steinman against Martin Tully. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
    Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGE, and SHEARN, JJ.
    
      J. Wilson Bryant, of New York City, for appellant.
    Isaac Josephson, of New York City, for respondent.
   PAGE, J.

This is an action to recover a broker’s commission on a real estate transaction. There was no evidence of the plaintiff’s employment by the defendant, nor of his having agreed to pay a commission, nor was it proved that the minds of the parties to the transaction ever met in agreement.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.  