SHELDON v. MITCHELL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 17, 1916.)
Bbokebs <g=s53—Rjcoiit to Commission.
Where plaintiff was employed by defendant on an express agreement to pay a commission ot 10 per cent, on the sales price of stock, and defendant received money upon the sale of the stock brought about by plaintiff’s efforts, plaintiff could recover.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 74; Dec, Dig. <S=»«53.J
,@==>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
*1086Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Frederick C. Sheldon against Charles E. Mitchell. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before CLARICE, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, SMITH, and PAGE, JJ.
Arthur Lovell, of New York City, for appellant.
John G. Jackson, of New York City, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff established prima facie that he was employed by the defendant on an express agreement to pay him a commission of 10 per cent, on the sales price of the stock, in a transaction in which the defendant was to receive all that might be realized over $50,000, and that defendant had received $10,000 upon the sale of this stock, which was brought about through plaintiff’s efforts, of which the defendant was the beneficiary. The complaint should not have been dismissed.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Order filed.