Lemen

Lemen v. Edmunson

Good Law
202 Cal. 760·262 P. 735
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 24, 1927Docket No. L.A. 8910.California1,224 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shenk, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in an action brought by. plaintiffs for a commission alleged to have been earned by them in negotiating a sale of real property for the defendant. The amended complaint alleged that plaintiffs were duly licensed real estate brokers in the county of Los Angeles; that on October 26, 1923, they entered into a contract with the defendant wherein and whereby the defendant agreed to pay them a commission in the event of the sale by them of certain of the defendant’s property described in the contract; that on November 3, 1923, the plaintiffs effected the sale for which the commission is claimed and that the commission has not been paid.' In his answer the defendant, among other things, denied that plaintiffs were duly licensed real estate brokers and alleged affirmatively that plaintiffs’ licenses had been revoked by the real estate commissioner. At the trial, by an agreed stipulation of facts, it appeared that plaintiffs had been duly licensed real estate brokers; that prior to the making of the contract which is the subject of the present controversy, the plaintiffs’ licenses had been revoked by the real estate commissioner; that…

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.