Blumenthall

Blumenthall v. Goodall

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1187·3 Cal. Unrep. 311·25 P. 131
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1890No. 12,638California865 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fox, J.

Action for the recovery of commissions claimed to have been earned by a real estate agent, in the sale of certain lands belonging to defendant. Judgment for defendant; motion for new trial denied, and appeal from both judgment and order. The record contains no bill of exceptions, or statement of the case. Consequently, there is nothing upon which we can review the order of the court refusing to grant a new trial. The only examination we can make is of the judgment-roll, and the only inquiry is whether the findings support the judgment. The court found that the defendant, being the owner of the land in question, on the thirteenth day of July, 1887, gave to L. Oestreicher, a real estate agent, an authorization in writing, of which the following is a copy: “I hereby authorize Mr. L. Oestreicher to sell blocks 899, 900, 901, 903, outside lands, for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) each; will allow him one hundred dollars ($100) as commissions for his services on each block. This contract to be in force for ten days from date hereof.” Which paper was duly dated and signed by defendant. The court further finds that on the same day Oestreicher agreed with one Fulda, orally,…

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.