Coover

Coover v. Cox

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 500·95 Cal. App. 1·272 P. 343
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 16, 1928Docket No. 5281.California1,623 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Crail, J.

On December 6, 1923, the plaintiffs delivered to a real estate salesman, named Washire, in the office of defendant Cox, a cheek for one thousand dollars as a deposit upon the purchase price of certain real estate, and received from Washire a “Sales Deposit Receipt” signed “Vincent J. Cox, agent, by Vincent J. Cox Pr H W.” The check was cashed by defendant Cox. The sales deposit receipt provided for the payment of the balance of the purchase price in cash through escrow upon delivery of a deed and a guaranty of title showing title to be in the vendor “free & clear also unrestricted.”

On December 31, 1923, the broker’s license of defendant. Cox expired and in connection with his license for 1924 he and the appellant surety company, as surety, executed to the people of the state a real estate broker’s bond, as required by section 9a of the General Laws, Act 112. The condition of the bond was that the defendant Cox would comply with said law and would faithfully perform every undertaking entered into by him as a licensed real estate broker. It also authorized the plaintiffs to commence and maintain an action against appellant for the recovery of any damages sustained by the failure…

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.