This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P recites that he was employed by Federman & Co, Inc. to find corporations that needed financing. By a letter dated October 25, 1966, Federman acknowledged that P had earned $10,000 for having arranged $200,000 in financing but that he was to receive 10% of any net profit which Federman might realize by a second financing of Mauchly Associates, Inc. in the year 1967. The complaint recites that D was an officer, director and nonvoting stockholder of Federman and that he became acquainted with Mauchly only through P and that he knew or should have known that P was to get 10% of the profits from financing Mauchly. P alleged that D then arranged private financing transactions without P’s knowledge. When P discovered these transactions, he made due demand for his 10% on the more than $1,000,000 but D refused to compensate him. P sued for 10% of the profits realized by D and P sought an accounting. D moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that D and D’s wife loaned Mauchly more than $200,000 and became a director of that corporation. D also claims that because he was an officer of Federman, he was not individually liable under P’s agreement with Federman. The court granted D’s motion and dismissed the complaint; P was in effect seeking a finder’s fee, and thus the Statute of Frauds required that it be in writing and the letter from Federman to P did not bar or obligate D in any way. The Appellate Division affirmed. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.