
    Nathan A. Turner, App’lt, v. Henry W. Putnam, Resp’t.
    
      (City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February 24, 1891.)
    
    Brokers—Commissions.
    Evidence that a real estate broker, employed by defendant to sell certain premises, brought them to the attention of the purchasers and brought them and defendant together, makes a prima facie case for the jury in an action for commissions.
    Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint .at the close of plaintiff’s testimony.
    Action to recover commissions on a sale of real estate. Plaintiff’s testimony showed that he was a real estate broker; that defendant gave him a diagram of the lots in question and agreed to pay him one per cent commision; that he gave the diagram and price to Moores & Le Quesne and called several times on them in relation to it; Moores finally told plaintiff that they had sent their attorney, Alexander, to make an offer to plaintiff; defendant denied having seen him, and then plaintiff gave defendant their name and address as customers ; a few days afterwards the lots were sold toMoores & Le Quesne.
    
      A. W. Tenney, for app’lt; Horace Graves, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

We have carefully read all the testimony in this case and are satisfied plaintiff made out a prima facie case for the jury.

There is testimony which strongly tends to • show that defendant, knowing him to be a real estate broker, employed plaintiff to sell certain premises, that plaintiff brought the same to the attention of the purchasers, and brought them and the defendant together, and that defendant sold these parties the premises for the price he asked.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Clement, Oh. J., and Yan Wyck, J., concur.  