Brown

Brown v. De Carlo

Good Law
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 792·97 Cal. App. 426·275 P. 992
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 8, 1929Docket No. 6463.California1,093 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Koford, J.

Plaintiffs sought by this action to obtain a judgment of $450 as real estate broker’s commission. Judgment was in favor of defendant. The respondent pleaded in his answer among other affirmative defenses that the sale alleged to have been made by appellant was a “wash sale,” but the trial court omitted making separate findings upon these affirmative allegations. It found that respondent had not signified his approval of the said alleged sale in writing as alleged in the complaint; that the appellants did not consummate a sale of the property; did not perform the contract by which the property was listed with them; did not produce a purchaser, and did not obtain a valid and binding contract from their alleged purchaser. Appellants argue several points of law in their briefs, but their attack upon the judgment is in reality a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s findings.

Our examination of the evidence convinces us that the court’s findings are sufficiently supported by the evidence. Respondent in writing authorized appellants to list and sell certain property and agreed to pay a commission should appellants “succeed in selling it.” The authorization…

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.