
    William L. Youngman, Respondent, v. The North Electric Company, Appellant.
    
      Youngman v. North Electric Co., 160 App. Div. 758, reversed.
    (Argued April 18, 1916;
    decided May 2, 1916.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered March 30, 1914, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered . upon a verdict and directing a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover commissions. The complaint alleged that the defendant had entered into a contract with plaintiff’s assignor whereby he was to take up and bring about negotiations between the defendant and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, or any of its associated companies, or any parties in the interest of said American Telephone and Telegraph Company appertaining to and to effect the sale by the defendant of its so-called auto-manual telephone apparatus, and that upon a sale growing out of his negotiations he was to receive a certain percentage of the price received; that thereafter a sale was brought about and effected as a result of his services. The answer contains a denial that the sale was brought about or effected as the result of the services or negotiations of plaintiff’s assignor in accordance with the contract, and sets forth a denial as to all the facts in the complaint not expressly admitted. It then alleges that said assignor abandoned the negotiations; that he was wholly unable to effect a. sale under his contract, and that, subsequently the contract was canceled and terminated by mutual agreement. It is then alleged that thereafter the defendant employed another agent to effect a sale to the Western Electric Company and that solely as the result of the efforts of this agent a license was granted to the Western Electric Company to make, use and sell the apparatus.
    
      Louis L. Babcock and Robert S. Stevens for appellant.
    
      Howard Taylor and Avery F. Cushman for respondent.
   Judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, on the opinion of Hotchkiss, J., in the Appellate Division, and the case remitted to that court for its consideration of the facts.

Concur: Hiscock, Chase, Cuddebaok, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ.‘; Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., concurs in result.  