Meisner

Meisner v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

Good Law
273 F.2d 49
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 7, 1959No. 16358California2,278 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hamley, J.

Harry H. Meisner brought this action to recover a commission assertedly earned for finding a person willing to purchase the assets of a corporation. Named as defendants were the corporation in question, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., and Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles as executor of the estate of Thomas J. Neilan. During his lifetime Neilan had been president and controlling stockholder of Reliance Steel. Jurisdiction in the district court was founded upon diversity of citizenship.

Summary judgment was entered for defendants, and Meisner appealed. He here contends that the case should not have been disposed of by summary judgment because there were genuine issues as to material facts.

*50 The court based its judgment on the following independent grounds: (1) Appellees were not parties to any contract with Meisner for the payment of a commission; (2) if there was such a contract, Meisner did not earn his commission because no sale of the assets or capital stock of Reliance Steel was consummated; (3) Meisner cannot maintain the action because he was not licensed by ■California as a business opportunity broker or salesman; and (4) he failed to file a creditor’s claim…

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.