City of New York Municipal Court, 1897

Bloomingdale v. Hodges

Bloomingdale v. Hodges
City of New York Municipal Court · Decided April 15, 1897
20 Misc. 713; 45 N.Y.S. 1134

Counsel

Henry Tompkins, for appellants., Horwitz & Hershfield, for respondent.

Bloomingdale v. Hodges

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff’s firm 10' per cent, of the amount realized by them out of a certain contract to be made between them and one Proctor, providing the plaintiff’s firm procured such contract from Proctor.

Plaintiff performed his part of the agreement and now defendants claim that plaintiffs were the agents of Proctor, and, therefore, cannot recover herein.

There is no evidence even tending to show that plaintiff’s firm was Proctor’s agent, in fact the contrary is shown, and that in conducting the business in question he was solely and only defendants’ agent.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Van Wyok, Oh. J., Fitzsimons and McCarthy, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.