Legal Opinion
Curran v. Holland
California Supreme Court
Decided December 28, 1903No. S.F. No. 3525PublishedCited by 9 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from an order denying a new trial. S. P. Hall, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
COOPER, C.—
Action to recover commission for procuring a loan under an express contract. Findings were filed and judgment entered in favor of plaintiff:. This appeal is from the judgment and an order denying defendant a new trial.
It is claimed that the court erred in allowing parol evidence for the purpose of showing that defendant was the principal in the written agreement as to plaintiff’s commission.
The agreement was as follows:—
“This is to certify that I, David Gregor, hereby authorize Charles S. Curran to negotiate for me a loan upon my property at the northeast corner of Broadway and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Briggs v. . PartridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Coleman v. . First National Bank of ElmiraNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Byington v. SimpsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rubin v. Platt Music Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Cook v. La Vina Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Hill v. Gratigny Plateau Development Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
- Humphrey v. BusseySupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- Purviance v. ShostakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.