Littlefield v. Bowen
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Mackintosh, J., entered May 8, 1915, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract, tried to the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.
Respondent, a real estate broker, as first party, one Thorniley and wife as second parties, and appellants as third parties, on September 23, 1914, entered into a written contract whereby the Thornileys and Bowens agreed to exchange certain properties at certain stipulated valuations, and each of the exchanging parties pay to respondent a certain stipulated commission, the same “being payable upon the execution of the instruments effecting the exchange.” The “instruments effecting the exchange” were never executed by both parties to the exchange. The Thornileys claim to have been “ready, able…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Riggs v. TurnbullCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907
- Livermore v. CraneWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Carter v. OwensSupreme Court of Florida · 1909
- Gilliland v. JaynesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hatten R. Co. v. Baylies Et Ux.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1930
- Devoto v. United Auto Transportation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1924
- Farr v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Coleman v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1920
- James E. Carlson, Inc. v. BablerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.