Hudson

Hudson v. Morgan & Peacock Properties Co.

Good Law
170 Cal. App. 2d 328·1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 2214·339 P.2d 180
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 13, 1959Civ. 18076California1,348 words

Opinion

Opinion

Draper, J.

This is an action upon a claimed oral agreement for the sharing between brokers of a commission on sale of real estate. Judgment was entered upon jury verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial (Code Civ. Proc., § 629) and later moved to vacate the judgment. The motion for new trial was granted and those for judgment notwithstanding verdict and to vacate the judgment were denied. Defendants appeal from denial of the latter two motions and, by cross-appeal, plaintiff asked reversal of the order granting new trial. Defendants then appealed from the judgment.

The trial court believed that it had erred in an instruction upon estoppel, and this is the principal ground upon which the new trial was granted. Since the contract claimed by plaintiff is oral, recovery under it is dependent upon a showing that plaintiff and defendants are real estate brokers. Defendant Agostini was licensed as a salesman and not as a broker. Plaintiff, however, asserted that defendants had represented Agostini to be a broker and thus are estopped to rely upon his lack of such license. The court instructed the jury that “as a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.