
    Burtis v. Cassidy.
    
      (City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.
    
    October 27, 1890.)
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Henry M. Burtis against John Cassidy. There was a verdict for plaintiff. From the judgment entered thereon, defendant appeals.
    Argued before Clement, C. J., and Osborne, J.
    
      Jackson & Burr, for appellant. Jacob Brenner, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff alleges that he was employed by defendant to exchange his farm and stock thereon for city property that would be acceptable to defendant; that plaintiff procured one Donohue to offer certain property for defendant’s farm and stock; and that said offer was accepted by defendant. The defense of defendant was twofold: First. That defendant did not accept such offer; second, that he was not to be liable for commissions until the exchange should be actually consummated by delivery of deeds. There was a conflict of evidence on both of these questions, which were submitted to a jury. They decided both in favor of plaintiff. After careful examination of the testimony, we think these questions were properly submitted to the jury, and see no reason for disturbing the verdict. Judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.  