Tate

Tate v. Aitken

Good Law
1907 Cal. App. LEXIS 291·5 Cal. App. 505·90 P. 836
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 6, 1907Civ. No. 314.California3,081 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

Plaintiff commenced this action for the purpose of recovering the sum of $500 alleged to be due him from de fendants, said amount representing, it is alleged, the difference between the sum paid to plaintiff by the defendants for a piece of land belonging to the former, and the sum received for said land by said defendants on a sale of the same to a third party, the transaction involving such sale having been conducted, it is averred, by defendants as agents of plaintiff. Plaintiff was given judgment for $200, from which and the order denying a new trial this appeal is taken.

The defendants, at and for some time prior to the date of the institution of «this action, were copartners, engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate, at the town of Corning, in Tehama county. The plaintiff at the same time was the owner of “Lot numbered 2, in the Block numbered 11, in Richfield Colony, in the said County of Tehama.” In the month of July, 1904, the plaintiff employed said defendants as agents, conferring -upon them full authority to sell said lot, agreeing to pay them for their services in effecting the sale thereof so much as they might receive therefor in excess of a…

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.