Houston v. H. G. Wolff & Son Investment Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burke
Plaintiffs in error are hereinafter referred to as Houston and defendant in error as Wolff.
Wolff, a real estate broker, sued Houston for $750 commission on a trade, and had a verdict for approximately that sum on which judgment was entered. To review that judgment Houston prosecutes this writ. We have heretofore denied a supersedeas in this cause. On its final presentation no reply brief was filed.
The errors assigned are: (1) Certain evidence should have been excluded; (2) plaintiff’s motion for nonsuit should have been sustained; (3) demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained; (4)…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Geiger v. KiserSupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- Hall v. Farmers BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
- Hodgin v. PalmerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
- Minks v. ClarkSupreme Court of Colorado · 1921
- Morgan v. Howard Realty Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Brewer v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1961
- Bonanza Real Estate, Inc. v. CrouchCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
- George v. DowerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1951
- Great Falls Properties, Inc. v. Professional Group, Ltd.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1982
- Cowgill v. NeetSupreme Court of Colorado · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.