Lockhart v. Hamlin
| Decision Date | 03 December 1907 |
| Citation | 190 N.Y. 132,82 N.E. 1094 |
| Parties | LOCKHART v. HAMLIN. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Action by Cassius A. Lockhart against William Hamlin. Judgment for defendant (116 App. Div. 921,101 N. Y. Supp. 1129), and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Moses Shire, for appellant.
Louis L. Babcock, for respondent.
This is an action to recover $20,000 as compensation for services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant in procuring a tenant for certain real estate in the city of Buffalo. The plaintiff was nonsuited, on the ground that he failed to prove that his efforts were the ‘direct procuring cause’ of the lease, and that his own version of what occurred between him and the defendant estopped him from claiming any compensation for his services. Further reference will be made to these points hereafter. The trial court directed the plaintiff's exceptions to be heard in the first instance at the Appellate Division, where they were overruled, and judgment was directed in favor of the defendant.
It appeared without dispute upon the trial that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement, evidenced by written correspondence between them, whereby the plaintiff undertook to procure a tenant for the property in question, and the defendant promised to pay him $20,000 for his services in so doing, should the defendant make a lease of the said property on or before May 1, 1904, ‘to any one brought to the defendant by the plaintiff, or whose coming could be attributed to the efforts of the plaintiff.’ The plaintiff, after endeavoring to obtain a tenant on the terms specified in this express contract, informed the defendant that he had found it very difficult to get a man with money enough to go into business in the building. He suggested to Mr. Hamlin that he would have to put some money into the business to be carried on there, to which suggestion Mr. Hamlin responded that he had retired from business, and did not care to do that, but would do so if the plaintiff found him the right kind of a tenant. According to the plaintiff's testimony, that he believed he could get Mr. John F. Sweeney, one of the most successful men in Buffalo, to go into the building. The defendant asked him how much money he would have to put in, and the plaintiff said, ‘perhaps $250,000 or $300,000,’ and the defendant finally said to the plaintiff that, ‘if he could get the right kind of a man he would put in money.’ After this conversation, the plaintiff went to see Mr. Sweeney, had a conversation with him, and took him to the defendant's house, where a long interview ensued between Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Sweeney in regard to the proposition that Mr. Sweeney should enter into business in the building which Mr. Hamlin desired to rent, and that Mr. Hamlin should put money into the enterprise. Subsequently a corporation was formed under the name of the ‘Sweeney Company,’ in which Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Hamlin, and others were interested, and this corporation took a lease of the premises. The plaintiff bases his claim to a recovery in this action upon the making of this lease, which he alleges was due to his efforts to induce Mr. Sweeney to become a tenant and go into business upon the property in question.
If the plaintiff's case rested upon the written contract alone, it is plain that he could not recover. The status of Mr. Hamlin in that contract was simply that of the landlord of the property. The agreement did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- City of Meridian v. Beeman
-
Cook v. Saltzer, 7910
...contract on quantum meruit if the evidence fails to show the express contract, but does sustain an implied contract. Lockhart v. Hamlin, 190 N.Y. 132, 82 N.E. 1094(3); Moreen v. Carlson's Estate, 365 Ill. 482, 6 N.E.2d 871; Shirk v. Brookfield, 77 App.Div. 295, 79 N.Y.S. 225; Baumann v. Man......
-
Theodore Wetmore & Co. v. Thurman
...services are reasonably worth, and, in the latter event, the value of such services. Utter v. Buck, 120 Ill. App. 120;Lockart v. Hamlin, 190 N. Y. 132, 82 N. E. 1094. It is desirable that the entire controversy be settled at one trial, so that the parties will not be put to the trouble and ......
-
Wetmore & Co. v. Thurman
...services are reasonably worth, and, in the latter event, the value of such services. Utter v. Buck, 120 Ill. App. 120; Lockart v. Hamlin, 190 N. Y. 132, 82 N. E. 1094. It is desirable that the entire controversy be settled at one trial, so that the parties will not be put to the trouble and......