193 A.D. 63 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1920
The mortgage was executed on the 12th day of May, 1914, by the defendant, a domestic corporation, to the plaintiff, as
It is difficult to understand how the pleader attempted to establish a connection between the purchase-money mort
On the defendant’s motion three issues were framed for trial by jury, namely:
“ 1. Did the plaintiff make the contract set forth in the first counterclaim in the answer herein, and if so, how much is due to the defendant, 15 West 44th Street Company herein?
“ 2. Has the plaintiff defrauded the defendant as set forth in the second counterclaim, and if so, what is the amount of damages the defendant suffered therefrom?
“ 3. Did the plaintiff extend the time of the 15 West 44th Street Company to pay the interest and taxes referred to in the complaint, and if so, to what time? ”
Those special issues were brought to trial before Mr. Justice Greenbaxjm and a juiy, and at the close of the evidence the jury were directed by the court to answer each of the questions in the negative. The cause was then brought on for trial at Special Term and, by consent, a motion for a new trial of the issues tried before the jury was there made and some further evidence was taken thereon and the amount due was computed. The court thereafter made a decision denying the motion and decreeing the, foreclosure of the building loan mortgage.
It was conceded on the trial that the husband of the plaintiff was her general agent authorized by her to make any agreement in the premises. There is no evidence, and it is not claimed, that either, the plaintiff or her husband personally or by letter made any agreement with the defendant for advancing more money. The only transactions claimed by the defendant with respect thereto consist of correspondence and interviews with Robert.
Robert was a real estate agent having offices at No. 150 Broadway. The plaintiff employed him as a broker to sell the premises and he placed his sign thereon. He negotiated the sale to Slater and was paid the regular brokerage commission therefor by the plaintiff. As an inducement to Slater to purchase he undertook to procure a building loan agree
I am of the opinion, therefore, that no prejudicial error was committed in excluding the evidence offered or in directing a verdict on the special issues.
It follows that the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Clarke, P. J., Dowling and Smith, JJ., concur.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.