Conklin v. Kruger
Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
Citation | 75 A. 436,79 N.J.L. 326 |
Parties | CONKLIN v. KRUGER. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Hoboken.
Action by George A. Conklin against Engellne Kruger. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued November term, 1909, before SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, and PARKER, JJ.
John D. Pierson, for appellant.
William S. Stuhr, for appellee.
TRENCHARD, J. Two questions of law are presented.
The first is raised on the following facts: The defendant, a prospective purchaser of real property, orally promised the plaintiff, a real estate agent, the sum of $125 if he would induce Ella Hayes, who had a piece of property to sell, and with whom he had no relation, to agree to sell the same at or below a certain stipulated price. The plaintiff accepted the offer and accomplished the desired result. The defendant refused to pay, and the plaintiff in this suit sought to recover the compensation agreed upon. The trial judge held, as a matter of law, that there could be no recovery, on the ground that the agreement was not in writing and signed, and was therefore in violation of section 5, subd. 4, of the Statute of Frauds (Gen. St. p. 1003), which provides that no action shall be brought upon any contract or sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them, unless the agreement, upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.
We are of the opinion that this ruling of the trial Judge was erroneous. An oral agreement to act as agent in buying land is not within the statute of frauds and creates an agency which may be proved by parol. Carr v. Leavitt, 54 Mich. 540, 20 N. W. 576; Baker v. Wainwright. 36 Md. 336, 11 Am. Rep. 495; Hannan v. Prentis, 124 Mich. 417, 83 N. W. 102; Harben v. Congdon. 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 221; Huff v. Hard wick, 19 Colo. App. 416, 75 Pac. 593; Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C. 403, 40 S. E. 119; Ambrose v. Ambrose, 94 Ga. 655, 19 S. E. 980; Lamb v. Baxter, 130 N. C. 67, 40 S. E. 850. As was said in Lamb v. Baxter, supra: Our attention has not been directed to any case in New Jersey which conflicts with that rule. The case of Wallace v. Brown, 10 N. J. Eq. 308, does not. In that case the party who employed the agent sought to compel him to convey where the agent took title in his own name— a very different situation. The rule there announced that the statute applied has no application to the case at bar. In the case of Spengeman v. Palestine Building Association, 60 N. J. Law...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kopin v. Orange Products, Inc.
...implies a promise on the part of the party requesting the services to pay a just and reasonable compensation...." Conklin v. Kruger, 79 N.J.L. 326, 328, 75 A. 436 (Sup.Ct.1910). See also Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. New York Yankees, 207 A.D.2d 256, 615 N.Y.S.2d 31, 34 (1994) ("In order t......
-
Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.
...Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. New York Yankees, 207 A.D.2d 256, 615 N.Y.S.2d 31, 34 (N.Y.A.D.1994)); see also Conklin v. Kruger, 79 N.J.L. 326, 328, 75 A. 436 (1910) ("It is well-settled that where one performs services for another at his request, but without any agreement or understanding......
-
Glick v. Barclays De Zoete Wedd, Inc.
...services to pay a just and reasonable compensation. Kopin, supra, 297 N.J.Super. at 367, 688 A.2d 130 (quoting Conklin v. Kruger, 79 N.J.L. 326, 328, 75 A. 436 (Sup.Ct.1910)). Thus, to prevail, the dismissed attorney must demonstrate that the former client would be unjustly enriched by the ......
-
Louis Schlesinger Co. v. Wilson, A--34
...of real estate commissions. 2 Corbin on Contracts (1950), sec. 295, p. 77; 12 C.J.S., Brokers, § 62, a, p. 140; cf. Conklin v. Kruger, 79 N.J.L. 326, 75 A. 436 (Sup.Ct.1910). The statute has been twice amended (L.1911, c. 331; L.1918, c. 273), both times to relieve the statute of a decided ......