Wilson

Wilson v. Brown

Good Law
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 886·96 Cal. App. 140·273 P. 847
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 4, 1929Docket No. 3655.California1,694 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Shields, J.

This appeal arose from facts of which the following is a sufficient statement: Plaintiff and the defendant Brown were associated together in various real estate activities. While so associated a tract of land near Elsinore, in the county of Riverside, was called to their notice and they took an option for the purchase from its owners, each paying one-half of the cost of the option. The defendants Hursh and Clement were copartners engaged in real estate operations. Plaintiff interviewed the latter defendants with the view of having them purchase the Elsinore property held under the above option, and, after conferences and inspection in which all four of the parties participated, the defendants Hursh and Clement purchased the property with the understanding that they were to finance the purchase and subdivision of the tract and that Brown or Brown and plaintiff Wilson were to do the work of selling it. In consideration of their part in the business defendants Hursh and Clement were to have sixty per cent of the profits, and the defendant Brown, or the defendant Brown and plaintiff, according to the different contentions of the parties, was or were to have the remaining forty per…

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.