Legal Opinion
Coffman v. Crookshank
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 26, 1934No. Civ. No. 8539PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff secured the acceptance of an agreement whereby defendant and his wife offered to exchange property described therein belonging to them for certain property belonging to W. L. Rohrer and .wife, the terms of exchange being set out in said agreement. Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $1500 upon “acceptance of the proposition to exchange the above described property on the above terms”. Rohrer in his acceptance agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $1,000 “for the exchange of our property . . . for the services of said agent”. The property of the Rohrcrs…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Traxler v. KatzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
3Cited by6 opinions
- Watson v. AcedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Donnellan v. RocksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Woolley v. BishopCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
- Williams v. KrumsiekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Barton v. White Oak Realty, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.