Stieglitz

Stieglitz v. Settle

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 190·50 Cal. App. 581·195 P. 705
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 24, 1920Civ. No. 3612.California2,110 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an action instituted by the plaintiff to recover commissions as a broker for services rendered in the sale of the interest of the defendant, Mrs. Maria E. de Settle, in a certain tract of land consisting of 886 acres. The plaintiff had judgment for the sum of $12,581.20, and the defendant appeals, the ground for reversal urged being that the trial court, by its instructions to the jury, based upon what it deemed to be the law of the case, practically withdrew the question at issue from their consideration. We think this contention must be sustained. A reference to some of the testimony in the case will show the grounds upon which we base this conclusion.

Prior to and at the time of said sale the plaintiff was an attorney at law practicing in San Pedro, and the defendant, being the widow of one Aurelia W. Sepulveda, also resided in that locality. Later she married Henry Settle, and the latter for that reason has been joined as a party defendant. The deceased husband of Maria E. de Settle left a large estate consisting principally of land, his only heirs being said defendant and his daughter. Part of the estate coming to said defendant was an undivided one-half interest 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.