Mendenhall
Mendenhall v. Rose
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Vanclief, J.
It is alleged in the complaint in this action that by a written contract the defendant authorized and employed the plaintiff as his agent and broker to sell certain real property situate in the county of Alameda, “generally known as the ‘Jose Reyes Bernal Rancho, ’ ” and agreed to pay plaintiff for his services as such agent and broker what said services were reasonably worth. That thereafter “plaintiff found and secured for defendant a purchaser at a price satisfactory to defendant of the real property aforesaid, to whom said defendant sold said property.” That the services so rendered by plaintiff for defendant were reasonably worth the sum of $950, no part of which has been paid, and for which he prays judgment. The defendant answered, specifically denying the alleged contract, authorization, and employment, and also denying the alleged services. The court found the facts as alleged by plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
To prove the alleged authorization and employment, the plaintiff offered in evidence the following letter: