Legal Opinion

Rucker v. Humbler

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 8, 1922No. Civ. No. 3679PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

By this action plaintiff, Rucker, sued to recover six hundred dollars as commission for having represented defendant, Hubler, as agent and having secured the execution of an agreement of exchange of real estate. Concerning this agreement the court found as follows:

“That on, or about, the 11th day of January, 1919, the city of Long Beach, California, the defendant, S. M. Hubler, employed the plaintiff, M. S. Rucker as a real estate broker to secure an agreement for the transfer of the southeast quarter (SE. *4) of section twenty-two (22), township five south (5 S.), range six (6), Riverside…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Jennings v. JordanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  2. Connor v. RigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Edwards v. BillowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Lind v. HueneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Spalding v. BennettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Blodgett v. RowletCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API