Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rogensof v. Perkoff & Forman Inc.

New Jersey Supreme Court


Decided: July 25, 1941.

SAMUEL ROGENSOF, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
PERKOFF & FORMAN, INC., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Defendant seeks reversal of a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $500 with interest and costs entered in the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the County of Essex.

For the defendant-appellant, Murray E. Kempler (Joseph Weintraub, of counsel).

For the plaintiff-respondent, Harry Levin.

Before Justices Parker, Donges and Colie.

Colie

[127 NJL Page 28]

The opinion of the court was delivered by

COLIE, J. Plaintiff brought suit to collect one-half of the commission of $1,000 paid to the defendant upon the sale of certain premises to Rae Bressman in 1938.

The evidence was somewhat confused and uncertain but it showed that Rogensof, the plaintiff, had, in 1936, introduced one Louis Bressman to the corporate defendant, the general managing agent of Howard Savings Institution, and that a lease for three years was entered into between Bressman and Howard Savings Institution. For this service, the plaintiff, Rogensof was paid an agreed commission. About the middle of 1937, Rogensof talked with Louis Bressman and communicated to Perkoff & Forman, Inc., an offer by Bressman to purchase the premises for $20,000. He was told to forget it as Bressman was financially irresponsible. In April, 1938, the premises were sold to Rae Bressman, the wife of Louis Bressman, for $20,000. Prior to the dealings with Bressman,

[127 NJL Page 29]

the plaintiff had sold another property on Spruce street, Newark, at which time the defendant split the commission evenly with him. Plaintiff testified, without objection, that about the time of the Bressman sale, one Arthur Perkoff, a salesman for the defendant, told plaintiff that if he sold the property he would get the commissions. There was evidence before the court to justify the judgment entered and therefore we shall not disturb it. Appellant argues that the court erred in failing to make any findings on the issues, but, obviously, it has overlooked the rule that the appellate court will assume a finding of fact that will support the judgment appealed from. Steinmeyer v. Phenix Cheese Co., 91 N.J.L. 351.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs.

19410725


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.