Rauchwanger v. Katzin
| Decision Date | 26 February 1912 |
| Citation | 82 A. 510,82 N.J.L. 339 |
| Parties | RAUCHWANGER et al. v. KATZIN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Newark.
Action by Harry Rauchwanger and others against Morris Katzin. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1911, before MINTURN, TRENCIIARD, and KALISCH, JJ.
Philip J. Schotland, for appellant.
Charles Elin, for appellees.
The second district court of the city of Newark certified the testimony and findings which present the state of the case in this action.
The defendant Katzin entered into the following agreement with the plaintiff: "I the undersigned Morris Katzin, do hereby authorize Harry Rauchwaarger and Moses Arnowitz to act as our agents and procure a purchaser of our property #72 Montgomery street and do hereby agree to pay them as services for their commission two and one half per cent., commission on the purchase price, should same property be sold through efforts or with their aid, and to be paid on day of settlement."
The trial court found that the plaintiffs found a purchaser ready and willing to purchase the property at a price that was satisfactory to the defendant, but that, owing to the Dejections of the defendant's wife to convey, and the further fact that the defendant insisted as a condition of settlement that the plaintiffs reduce their claim for commission to the extent of $100, no "day of settlement" was ever reached or fixed, and upon that ground the defendant in this suit contests payment of the plaintiffs' claim for commissions.
The facts plainly evince that' the plaintiffs performed their part of the contract by procuring a purchaser ready and willing to take title, and therefore under the well-settled rules of law were entitled to recover the commissions provided for in the contract. Crowley v. Myers, 69 N. J. Law, 245, 55 Atl. 305.
The trial court having found these facts in favor of the plaintiffs, their right to recover the stipulated compensation is manifest, unless we can upon the authority of Hinds v. Henry, 36 N. J. Law, 328, support the contention of the defendant that the day of payment of the compensation must be postponed ad infinitum because perchance the day of settlement contemplated in the agreement may never be fixed by the defendant. The case of Hinds v. Henry was based upon an agreement which contained a time limit within which the agent might consummate his agreement. That limitation was subsequently extended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. Johnson
...Taub, 105 N.J.L. 237, 143 A. 335 (E. & A. 1928); Freeman v. Van Wagenen, 90 N.J.L. 358, 101 A. 55 (Sup.Ct.1917); Rauchwanger v. Katzin, 82 N.J.L. 339, 82 A. 510 (Sup.Ct.1912). Manifestly, 'able' in the context of the rule meant more than mere mental competence to make a contract or physical......
-
Hintz v. Wagner
... ... v. Central States Bridge Co. 49 Ind.App. 544, 97 N.E ... 803; Benbow v. The James John, 61 Ore. 153, 121 P ... 899; Rauchwanger v. Katzin, 82 N.J.L. 339, 82 A ... 510; Hillman v. Donaldson, 67 Wash. 412, 121 P. 866; ... Hubbard v. Ferry, 141 Wis. 17, 135 Am. St. Rep. 27, ... ...
-
Blau v. Friedman
...vendor, has indulged in some affirmative wrongful act which in effect has prevented the consummation of the sale. Rauchwanger v. Katzin, 82 N.J.L. 339, 82 A. 510 (Sup.Ct.1912); Lehrhoff v. Schwartsky, supra; Keifhaber v. Yannelli, supra; Marschalk v. Weber, supra; Beckmann, Inc., v. (Zinke'......
-
Marschalk v. Weber
...own malfeasance or purely capricious refusal to perform his agreement. Actus legis nemini facit injuriam. Rauchwanger v. Katzin, 82 N.J.L. 339, 82 A. 510 (Sup.Ct. 1912); Lehrhoff v. Schwartsky, 125 A. 496, 2 N.J.Misc. 353 (Sup.Ct. 1924); Keifhaber v. Yannelli, 9 N.J.Super. 139, 75 A.2d 478 ......