Blodget

Smith v. Blodget

Good Law
187 Cal. 235·1921 Cal. LEXIS 352·201 P. 584
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 14, 1921L. A. Nos. 6628, 6629, 6630, 6631.California3,202 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lennon, J.

From the following facts the present litigation arose: Plaintiffs were the owners of certain land in Kern County, California, and desired to dispose of the same. In June, 1918, plaintiff Frank H. Smith, Sr., held a conversation with defendants R. B. Blodget and T. E. Commins, dealers in real estate, wherein defendant Blodget stated that the Associated Oil Company was interested in purchasing a thousand contiguous acres in said county at $150 an acre and that plaintiffs’ land was in the contemplated area. The necessity of securing united action on the part of the several owners of the land in the tract under consideration was discussed and plaintiff Smith, Sr., stated that his son, Frank H. Smith, Jr., could obtain a written option on 160 acres thereof which was owned by several persons jointly, to wit, C. H. Plummer, Emelie H. Smith, and certain others represented by Leslie S. Smith as trustee. The subsequent dealings concerning this particular parcel of land, called the “Plummer quarter section,” gave rise to the present controversy. Pursuant to the above conversation, Smith, Jr., obtained a written instrument reading:

This authorization plaintiffs immediately entrusted to…

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.