Legal Opinion
Edgecomb v. Callahan
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 24, 1933No. Docket No. 7551PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DESMOND, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff claimed the sum of $8,750 was due him as commission earned in connection with a transaction involving certain real estate belonging to the defendant in the city of Long Beach. Prom a judgment in favor of defendant this appeal is prosecuted.
The appellant, a regularly authorized real estate broker, on April 12, 1929, secured from respondent a letter reading as follows:
“April 12, 1929.
“Mr. C. A. Edgecomb, Long Beach, California.
“Dear Sir:
“After our conversation yesterday, in regard to the leasing of my West Ocean property, described as lots one to eight, inclusive,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- McCollough v. Home Ins. Co. of N.Y.California Supreme Court · 1909
- McCarthy v. LoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Guy v. BrennanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Shepherd-Teague Co. v. HermannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Dabney v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Cochran v. EllsworthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Trombley v. KoltsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- O'Donnell v. LutterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Denbo v. Weston Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.