
    Julian B. Shope, App’lt, v. Daniel Campbell, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 13, 1889.)
    
    Brokers—Commissions.
    In an action to recover compensation for services performed by plaintiff in the procurement of a loan for defendant, plaintiff testified that defendant desired a loan, that he informed defendant that he could effect it, and that his charges would be so much. Defendant replied, “all right, that is satisfactory.” Defendant offered no evidence. Held, that judgment should be rendered for plaintiff. *
    Appeal from a judgment of the Richmond county court.
    
      John Shope, plaintiff, per se; John J. Kenney, for deft
   Dykman,

J.—This is an action for the recovery of compensation for services performed by the plaintiff in the procurement of a loan of money, which he effected for the defendant The action was commenced and tried in a court of a justice of the peace, and upon the trial the plaintiff testified that the defendant desired a loan, and when the plaintiff informed him that he would try and effect the loan, the defendant desired him' to go ahead. He then testified to a subsequent conversation, in which he informed the defendant that he had parties who would make the loan, and that his charges for obtaining the loans would be $100, to which the defendant replied, all right, that is satisfactory.

The defendant offered no evidence, and so the testimony of the plaintiff stood uncontradicted. Yet the justice rendered a judgment for the defendant, which was reversed on appeal by the county court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for sixty dollars. The judgment was made sixty dollars in the county court because the plaintiff had received forty dollars from another source.

Both parties have appealed, but we think the judgment of the-county court is according to the very right of the case as that court is bound to do.

The judgment of the county court should be affirmed, without; costs.

All concur.  