Alexander v. Rekoon
| Decision Date | 10 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 35.,35. |
| Citation | 139 A. 796 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER v. REKOON. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.
Action by Morris Alexander against Isidore Rekoon. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued May term 1927, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BLACK and LLOYD, JJ.
Jacob Lubetkin, of Newark, for appellant.
Harry Levin, of Newark, for respondent.
This suit was brought by Alexander, a real estate broker, to recover commissions which he claimed to be due to him under a contract with the defendant for the sale of a lot in the city of Newark belonging to the latter. His case was that he was employed by the defendant to secure a purchaser for this plot of ground, under a promise that, if he succeeded in doing so, he should receive a commission of 5 per cent. upon the purchase price. The contract was an oral one, and was entered into on June 12, 1924. On the day following the plaintiff mailed a letter to the defendant (not registered), stating the terms of the oral contract and the amount of the commission to be paid to him in case he secured a purchaser. Rekoon denied on the witness stand that he had received such a letter; but the plaintiff, in contradiction of that statement, testified that on the 18th of June he had another conversation with the defendant over the telephone, in which the latter admitted the reception of the letter. Early in July the property was sold by Rekoon to a corporation known as the Workmen's Circle; the plaintiff having obtained it as a purchaser for the lot in question. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.
The only ground upon which we are asked to reverse the judgment under review is that the court improperly refused the request of the defendant to nonsuit the plaintiff or to direct a verdict against him. The basis of these applications was that, under the amendment to the statute of frauds of 1918 (P. L. p. 1020), plaintiff showed no right to recover. The amended statute declares that, where a broker has been employed by an oral contract and shall actually effect a sale, he may recover from the owner the amount of his commission on such sale, provided the broker shall within five days of the making of such oral contract serve upon such owner a notice in writing setting forth the terms of such oral agreement and stating the rate or amount of commission to be paid thereunder; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.A. Intile Realty Co., Inc. v. Raho
...v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 8 N.J. 433, 492-93, 86 A.2d 201 (1952). Plaintiff's counsel has relied upon Alexander v. Rekoon, 104 N.J.L. 1, 139 A. 796 (Sup.Ct.1927) which interpreted the term "personal service" as used in N.J.S.A. 25:1-9. Alexander appears to be directly on point. In t......
-
THE JL LUCKENBACH
...and received in San Francisco, and under such circumstances, the rule applied by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Alexander v. Rekoon, 104 N. J. Law, 1, 139 A. 796, appeals to me as a reasonable one. The court said (page 797 of 139 A., 104 N. J. Law, 1): "Where a letter is mailed in the p......
-
Roland-Leopoid v. Khoury
...by either defendant or defendant's agent. Ibid. Another case which provides substantial guidance to this court is Alexander v. Rekoon, 104 N.J.L. 1, 139 A. 796 (N.J.Sup.1927). In Alexander, a real estate broker brought suit to recover certain commissions claimed due him under a contract wit......
-
Wilson v. Twp. Comm. of Union Tp., Union County
...There is no merit in this contention. Notice was admitted. In no instance is it claimed that notice was not received. Alexander v. Rekoon, 104 N.J.L. 1, 139 A. 796; McKenna v. Harrington Co., 96 N.J. Eq. 700, 126 A. 532; Wilson v. Trenton, 53 N.J.L. 645, 23 A. 278, 16 L.R.A. Second, it is a......