Legal Opinion

Friedlander v. Christianson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 29, 1959No. 13361PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BELL, Chief Justice.

The appellant sued appellee to recover a real estate commission alleged to he owing because of the sale of property belonging to appellee. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by appellee, stating' in the judgment as his reasons for giving such judgment that the sale was not made within the time provided in the contract sued upon, and that the description of the property given in the contract of employment was insufficient under Article 6573a, Sec. 28, Vernon’s Ann. Tex.St. The contract upon which the suit is based reads as follows:

“Exclusive…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wilson v. FisherTexas Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Pickett v. BishopTexas Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Broaddus v. GroutTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Rowson v. RowsonTexas Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Hereford v. TilsonTexas Supreme Court · 1947

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Apex Financial Corp. v. Garza, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2004
  2. Ramesh v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1984
  3. Edwards v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969
  4. Butler v. BenefieldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1979
  5. Webb v. Eledge, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1984

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API