Matt J. Ward Co. v. Goelet

Decision Date15 February 1916
Docket Number148.
Citation230 F. 979
PartiesMATT J. WARD CO. v. GOELET.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

A. I Sire, of New York City (William L. Stone, of New York City of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Cary & Carroll, of New York City (P. A. Carroll, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for defendant in error.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The situation disclosed by the testimony was as follows: In 1907 the hotel was occupied by Mrs. Stafford under a lease expiring August 31, 1910. Plaintiff was employed by her to effect a sale of her interests under this lease and had procured two prospective purchasers, Lukes and Zahn, who were willing to consider the purchase of her unexpired term, provided they could obtain either a renewal of her lease or a new lease to themselves for some years after the expiration of the Stafford lease.

Plaintiff presented this proposition to defendant, who indicated that he would be willing to consent to the transfer of Mrs. Stafford's lease, is she wished to sell out, and to give new lease at a larger rental if the references of the proposed lessees turned out to be satisfactory. After further negotiations there were signed by defendant and Lukes and Zahn on November 18, 1907, an agreement and a lease. Usually, when there is an agreement to execute a lease and subsequently the lease is executed, the agreement is merged in the lease. But in this case both the instruments were signed at the same time, both sides contend that they should be read together and there seems to be no good reason why both should not be considered in ascertaining what was the whole contract, in the negotiating of which plaintiff's services were rendered.

The arrangement was as follows: Goelet leases the property to Lukes and Zahn for six years from September 1, 1910, upon two conditions: First. That Lukes and Zahn become assignees of Mrs. Stafford and enter the premises under her lease. This they did promptly, and for his services in procuring these parties to take over Mrs. Stafford's lease she has paid plaintiff. Second. That this new lease (of November 18, 1907) might be declared void by Goelet if Lukes and Zahn did not fulfill every obligation of Mrs. Stafford's lease down to the date of its expiration on August 31, 1910. If they failed to do so, and Goelet exercised his right to cancel, they would never become tenants, and the result of plaintiff's exertion would be entire failure to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Big Cola Corporation v. World Bottling Co., 9327.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 8, 1943
    ...to enforce his claim for compensation for services rendered. Gibboney v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 3 Cir., 122 F. 46; Matt J. Ward Co. v. Goelet, 230 F. 979. See also Globe Steel Abrasive Co. v. National Metal Abrasive Co., While under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is provided......
  • American Merchant Marine Ins. Co. v. Letton, 144.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 4, 1926
    ...insist that the defendant in error has a five-year contract by such oral agreement runs counter to the statute of frauds. Ward v. Goelet, 230 F. 979, 145 C. C. A. 173. Where the contract is subject to the statute, changes as to form or statements as to understanding must be governed by the ......
  • Goelet v. Matt J. Ward Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 10, 1917
  • Bell v. Shaw
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 24, 1916

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT