Waterman v. Boltinghouse
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
This is an action by plaintiff to recover commissions for an alleged sale of land. He never produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy on the terms of his employer, the defendant. He cannot, therefore, recover. (Dolan v. Scanlan, 57 Cal. 261; Moses v. Bierling, 31 N. Y. 462; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378; 22 Am. Rep. 441.)
Here the plaintiff had the exclusive right to sell for a term ending January 1, 1889, and the defendant, during this period, himself effected a sale. Though the plaintiff had the right to sell, to the exclusion of his employer, still he cannot recover his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Moses v. . BierlingNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Dolan v. ScanlanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wiggins v. WilsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Toomy v. DunphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Merkeley v. FiskCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Snook v. PageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- E. A. Strout Western Realty Agency v. GregoireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.