Legal Opinion
Oullahan v. Baldwin
California Supreme Court
Decided December 30, 1893No. 14622PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
This is an action by real estate brokers to recover commissions for negotiating a sale of a tract of land situated near the city of Stockton. The owners thereof gave Gaman & Lyon, real estate brokers of San Francisco, the following writing:
“ Stockton, September 17, 1887.
“We, F. T. Baldwin, B. F. Langford, and John D. McDougald, do hereby constitute and appoint Gaman & Lyon, of 339 Kearny street, of San Francisco, our sole agents for a period of five days from date hereof, to negotiate a sale of our Stockton lands, consisting of thirteen hundred and fourteen (1,314.35) and thirty-five…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Bacon v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Leventritt v. CowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Worley v. CarrollSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Hill v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.