Steinbach v. Pettingill

• Decision Date: 11 November 1901
• Parties: STEINBACH v. PETTINGILL.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

50 A. 443

67 N.J.E. 36

STEINBACH

v. PETTINGILL.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 11, 1901.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to court of common pleas, Monmouth county.

Action by Henry Steinbach against Nancy I. Pettingill. Judgment of nonsuit affirmed, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

The action was begun in the court of common pleas to recover the sum of $300 and Interest from August 24, 1896, for money paid George D. Pettingill in his lifetime upon the purchase price of real estate at Asbury Park, N. J., under an agreement entered into August 24, 1896, of which the following is a copy:

"Asbury Park, Aug. 24, 1896. Received from Henry Steinbach three hundred dollars, account of purchase of house and lot, corner of Grand, Cookman, and Summerfield avenues. Whole purchase price fourteen thousand dollars. Deed to be made at any time between this time and September 15, 1896. Possession given September 15, 1896. Interest 5 per cent. commencing January 1, 1897. First payment, two thousand dollars, when deed is made; balance to run five years, with the privilege of paying two thousand dollars or more at the option of the party of the second part. [Signed] George D. Pettingill."

At the close of the testimony the trial court nonsuited the plaintiff upon grounds stated in the following opinion:

"Heisley, J. The defendant moved to nonsuit The testator of the defendant by writing signed by him, authorized a real estate agent to sell certain property described as having a frontage on Grand avenue of one hundred feet agreeing to pay the agent's commission if the agent effected a sale at the price of $14,000. This writing contained a diagram snowing the property and the various streets upon which it abutted. The chief purposes of this writing evidently was to secure to the agent the payment of his commission pursuant to the statute, which requires the obligation to pay to be in writing. This writing would, perhaps, have made the testator liable to convey a lot of land having a frontage of one hundred feet on Grand avenue, or to pay damages upon his failure, if the agent had closed the sale of the property with a person relying solely on the writing, and not on the general boundaries of the property. The plaintiff disregarded the agent, and dealt directly with the testator, went to the latter's house,—being the premises in question,—and tried to buy the property at a less figure than $14,000, ultimately paying $300 on account of the purchase, and took a...