Heyn v. Philips
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Alameda County. This action was brought to recover four thousand dollars for the service rendered in finding a purchaser of the defendant’s land. The proof showed that the contract between the plaintiff' and the defendant was in parol.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Alameda County. This action was brought to recover four thousand dollars for the service rendered in finding a purchaser of the defendant’s land. The proof showed that the contract between the plaintiff' and the defendant was in parol. The Court below was of opinion that the contract was within the Statute of Frauds, so far as it related to the sale and conveyance of land, and that for that reason the plaintiff could not recover. The plaintiff appealed The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By tlie Court, Sawyer, C. J.:
The question in this case is, whether the contract sued on and proved is a contract “for the sale of any lands, or interest in lands,” within the meaning of the eighth section of the Statute of Frauds, and which is required to he in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged.
The contract alleged is, that defendant employed said plaintiff to negotiate a sale of certain described lands, and find a purchaser for the same; that it was “stipulated and agreed by and between said defendant and said plaintiff, that if said plaintiff would and should, within ten…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
- Carr v. LeavittMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Hicks v. PostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Palmer v. WahlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Snyder v. WolfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.