Brenneman v. Lane
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
VALENTINE, J., pro tem.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $3,250 for commissions alleged to be due under a contract by defendants. The evidence shows that in January, 1922, and for some time thereafter, the defendant Lane was the owner of a large apartment house in Hollywood, known as the Hillview Apartments. Through his agent, the defendant, Norman, he had contracted an exchange with one J. M. Neeland for orchard property in the Sacramento Valley, and for a lot in the Morris Vineyard tract on Hill Street, Los Angeles, called the Neeland lot. The transaction…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Houston v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Blood v. La Serena Land and Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by16 opinions
- Monarco v. Lo GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Norwood v. JuddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Le Blond v. WolfeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.