Glassell

Cleveland v. Glassell

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 713·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 481·4 P.2d 596
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 28, 1931Docket No. 4275.California1,442 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burroughs, J.

This is an action to recover the sum of $12,383.31, alleged to be due plaintiffs as commissions on the sale of real estate. Judgment went for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.

April 13, 1923, Andrew Glassell was the owner of fifty-eight acres of land near the city of Los Angeles, and desiring to subdivide the same into building lots, entered into a contract with E. T. Cleveland and M. E. Blair, the plaintiffs herein, operating under the firm name of Cleveland-Blair Realty Company, as agents, to carry out the subdivision thereof. Said Glassell died, and his interest in said land and contract passed to William M. Glassell and Andrietta G. Somers, the defendants. The differences between the parties concern the proper construction to be given to certain pro visions of said contract. The Cleveland-Blair Realty Company, hereinafter called the agents, brought this action to recover from the defendants the sum of $12,383.31, claimed to be due them for commissions on sales of lots in said tract of land.

For a clear understanding of the controversy it is necessary to state at some length the terms of said contract. By its terms the agents assumed the managerial charge of platting' and…

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.