Legal Opinion

Witte v. Taylor

California Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1895No. L. A. No. 56PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County. J. S. Noyes, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action to recover commissions for the sale of certain real estate. A general demurrer was sustained to the complaint, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered thereon. The action is based upon the following clause of a written contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant:

“ It is further understood and agreed that when said Taylor can secure from Plez James, of Anaheim, a deed conveying to said Taylor the undivided one-half interest in said ranch now owned by said Plez James in said Nevada ranch, then said Taylor will pay said Witte the sum of $2,000 as a commission…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cone v. KeilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  2. Boyd v. Big Three Ranch Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
  3. Barnard v. HardyUtah Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API