Whitaker

Whitaker v. Brainard

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 705·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1034·298 P. 1042
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1931Docket No. 7188.California1,690 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

The plaintiffs employed the defendant Kenneth A. Brainard to sell for them a lot in the city of Beverly Hills, which we will identify as “lot 69”, at the price of $60,000. Brainard pretended to find one M. A. Forsythe as purchaser, but in fact was himself the purchaser. Forsythe was Brainard’s uncle and acted as dummy in the transaction. An agreement was made for the sale of the property to Forsythe at said price. The sum of $2,000 was paid on signing of the agreement, which provided that if the purchaser failed to complete the purchase the amounts paid thereon should be retained as liquidated and agreed damages. It was further agreed that the seller should pay to the agent Brainard as commission the sum of $3,000. The terms of sale were $25,000 cash, including the $2,000 deposit; balance on first mortgage. Purchaser was to have clear title. The transaction was conducted through the usual process of. escrow, the escrow agent being the Security Trust & Savings Bank (Beverly Hills Branch). While the transaction was-in escrow, Forsythe and wife notified the bank that they had assigned their interest in the property to the defendants Brainard, saying, “we therefore nominate the title…

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.