Frenkil v. Hagan

AjoktNS, J., delivered the opinion of the O'ourt. Isaac Frenkil and Samuel M. Frenkil, trading as Baltimore Plumbing and Supply Company, purchased a lot of black steel pipe at a public auction, held at Norfolk, Virginia, by the Eastern Surplus Property Control of the War Department of the United States Government for $12,241.10, malting a deposit of $1,200 cash, together with a letter of credit from the National Bank of Baltimore, whereby said bank agreed to accept a ninety-day draft against said company accompanied by bill of lading covering the whole or any part of said pipe, the total of said draft not to exceed $11,041.10, the company guaranteeing the bank against loss. Thus the War Department was secured the payment of the balance, and soon thereafter shipments went forward. On inspection of the pipe shipped, it was found that it was in very bad condition and practically valueless, and unlike the sample by ¹⁰³ which the purchase was made; whereupon appellants advised the Government .authorities of the condition of the pipe and ashed that they be relieved from the contract, and also notified the bank not to pay any drafts of the Government.

But Captain Palmer, the Chief Commodity Officer of the Board of Eastern Surplus Property Control at Brooklyn, New York, which had jurisdiction of the matter, recommended that the sale be not cancelled because appellants bad bought the pipe “as is.” Isaac Frenkil went to New York in February, 1921, for the purpose of further contesting* the matter with the Board of Control. In the course of a, conversation with his brother-in-law, Jacob K. Goldscheider, at his store in that city, the latter suggested that Edward G. Hagan, the appellee, might be able to assist him,. Hagan was a prominent politician, a member of the Tammany organization, and was then or had been captain of bis ward. An introduction followed, an agreement was reached between Frenkil and Hagan for the services of Hagan, and after some1 negotiations between them and Captain Palmer, the contract was cancelled and the $1,200 which Frenkil had deposited was returned to him.

Whereupon Hagan demanded payment for his services on the basis of an alleged contract of 33-| per cent. P’ayment being refused, suit was brought and a verdict recovered for $1,529.19. This appeal is from a judgment entered on that verdict. There are in the record thirteen hills of exception, none of which was pressed at the argument except the last, the first twelve relating to exclusion of evidence which counsel for appellants stated “came in, or was. admitted at other times or in other forms.” So it will only be necessary to discuss the thirteenth, which was to the ruling of the trial court in refusing defendants’ first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth prayers and overruling defendants’ special exceptions to plaintiff’s first and second prayers.

The reporter is requested to set out all the prayers offered on both sides and defendants’ special exceptions. ¹⁰⁴ According to* the testimony offered by both tbe plaintiff and defendant®, there was an express contract between the parties for compensation to be paid by tbe defendants to* tbe plaintiff in tbe event of tbe cancellation by tbe Government of its contract with defendants, plaintiff’s contention being tbat it was to tbe thirty-three and a third per cent, of tbe contract price of tbe pipe, and defendants that it was to be one hundred dollars. The court below was therefore clearly right in refusing all prayers which sought to have submitted to the jury tbe finding, of the value of the services as the basis for a verdict. Townes v. Cheney, 114 Md. 362 ; Miller v. Mantik, 116 Md. 279 ; Sherley v. Sherley, 118 Md. 1 . This disposes of defendants’ sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth,