Bailey

Bailey v. Scholtz

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 355·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 518·289 P. 641
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 11, 1930Docket No. 7213.California651 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action to recover commissions which he alleged he had earned in procuring an enforceable contract to exchange one tract of land for another. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from a judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed and has brought up a typewritten record.

The plaintiff alleged a written agreement employing him to effect an exchange of properties between the defendant and Walter Ericson. On the trial the plaintiff produced and, over the objection of the defendant, the court received in evidence an agreement for the exchange of defendant’s lands for the lands of Ericson and which also contained covenants employing the plaintiff and fixing his compensation. The defendant claims there was a variance. We think he is in error. The paper was evidence of the allegation contained in the complaint and it was not inadmissible because it was evidence of something else.

The defendant’s offer was accepted by Ericson. It was also accepted in writing by Scheuneman, who also held an interest in the lands. The defendant asserts that such facts showed a qualified acceptance and that the defendant against his will was put in…

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.