Legal Opinion

Birnbach v. Kirspel

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 5, 1934No. 4-3342PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMehaffy, J.

The appellant, E. M. Birnbach, filed suit in the Pulaski Circuit Court alleging that on or about February 4, 1933, the appellee, John Kirspel, approached him and advised him that he had an option for 20 days on certain property situated in the city of Little Rock; that said option was taken in the name of George Porbeck, but that he, Kirspel, was the real party in interest. Appellant alleged that Kirspel employed him to make a sale of said property within the limit of the option of 20 days. Kirspel at the time advised appellant that there were taxes against said property of about $2,000 and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stiewel v. LallySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  2. Buckley v. HumasonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  3. Yount v. DenningSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
  4. Richardson v. BrixSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
  5. Meade v. LamarcheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hunter v. CunningOregon Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Dunn v. Phoenix Village, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1963
  3. Nelson v. StolzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
  4. Dacus v. BurnsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  5. McMillan v. DunlapSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943

2 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