Anderson

Anderson v. Wilstrup

Good Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 186·34 Cal. App. 771·168 P. 1150
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 10, 1917Civ. No. 2119.California551 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

By this action plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $312.50 as a commission alleged to have become due from defendant upon a broker’s written contract for the sale of land.

The only point involved in the case is whether or not the authorization of sale describes the property sufficiently to satisfy the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, sec. 1624, subd. 6). It was conceded at the trial that if such description be sufficient, plaintiff was entitled to a judgment.

The trial court found in favor of the defendant, and this appeal is from the judgment thereupon entered.

The portion of the contract pertinent to the question involved is as follows: “For and in consideration of the services to be performed by A. H. Anderson I hereby employ him as my sole and exclusive agent to sell for me that certain real property situate in the County of Marin, State of California, and described as follows, to wit: 68% acres on Olive Avenue or Black Point road, barn, chicken-house—26x40, Brooder house 14x30', windmill, well and spring, house of five rooms, running water, 14 acres marsh-land.”

We are of the opinion that this description contains all of the particulars necessary to identify the premises…

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.