Legal Opinion
Sumner v. Nevin
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 16, 1906No. Civ. No. 258PublishedCited by 12 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Judgment for defendant entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, from which plaintiff appeals.
It appears from the amended complaint that plaintiff, in November, 1901, held an exclusive agency for the sale of certain real property in the city of Los Angeles; that while such agency was in force plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract, by the terms of which plaintiff employed defendant in sajd business of real estate and in such other capacity as he might elect, and the second party agreed to devote his entire time and attention to the interests and business of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Coward v. ClantonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Taylor v. Black Diamond Coal Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by12 opinions
- May v. FarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- George v. ChaplinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Cameron v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Wallace v. SinclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Frankfort Marine Accident and Plate Glass Insurance Co. v. California Artistic Metal and Wire Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.