Ford

Ford v. Cotton

Good Law
1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 823·82 Cal. App. 675·256 P. 301
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 3, 1927Docket No. 4525.California2,857 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Johnson, J.

pro tem. — This is an action, tried without a jury, to recover brokerage claimed by plaintiff under a contract with defendant' reading as follows:

Plaintiff had agreed that C. C. C. Tatum should have one-third of the commission, to be paid directly by the defendant to Tatum, and this is the arrangement to which the contract alludes.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $5,666.66, being two-thirds of the agreed brokerage, and from that judgment defendant prosecutes this appeal.

Before he obtained the brokerage contract, plaintiff had presented the property to a real estate operator named Allen Ratteree; and after the brokerage agreement was signed, plaintiff on the same day brought defendant and Ratteree together at the latter’s office, in order that they might conduct their own negotiations. No written agreement of sale was ever made; but plaintiff relies upon his production of a purchaser whom he brought directly to defendant, and who in personal negotiations came to an oral agreement with defendant which, notwithstanding conflicting evidence, the court has found was made on the day of that meeting and on the following day repudiated by defendant. All parties agree…

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.