Legal Opinion

Lewis v. Dahl (Butt, Garnishers)

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 10, 1945No. 6813PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McDonough, justice.

Appellants challenge the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment, whereby respondent real estate broker recovered a real estate commission and attorney’s fee on a broker’s listing contract. It is conceded that if judgment ágainst defendant Dahl (who signed the listing agreement) is reversed, the judgment against the garnishee defendants who purchased the real estate described in the listing, automatically falls.

Respondent, a broker, obtained a listing contract from appellant M. J. Dahl which contains a provision that

"if said property or any part thereof is sold *…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bailey v. HenryTennessee Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Hargreaves v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Hartig v. SchraderCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921
  4. Piatt & Heath Co. v. WilmerMontana Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Hawks v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Barnet v. CannizzaroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
  2. Podolsky and Associates LP v. DiscipioAppellate Court of Illinois · 1998
  3. Curtis v. MortensenUtah Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Snider v. New River Insurance & Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1948
  5. Chumney v. StottUtah Supreme Court · 1963

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API