McCarthy v. Loupe
California Supreme Court
Appeal by plaintiff from an. order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial. Hunt, J. Action on contract. The complaint in this action, filed June 2, 1881, contains two counts.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from an. order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial. Hunt, J. Action on contract. The complaint in this action, filed June 2, 1881, contains two counts. In the first count it is alleged: that on the first day of March, 1881, the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff that in consideration that he, the plaintiff, would devote his time, labor, and skill in finding and securing a purchaser for a lot of land then belonging to the said defendant, situated at the south-east corner of Market and Fremont streets, in…
1Opinion of the Court
Sharpstein, J.:
The Code provides that “An agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission” is “invalid unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent.” (C. C., § 1624). It is not claimed that the agreement in this case or any note or memorandum thereof was in writing. But it is claimed that the plaintiff may, nevertheless, recover what his services were reasonably worth, upon a promise implied by law, by reason of the loss which he has sustained…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Cushing v. Monarch Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
- Beazell v. SchraderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Zeimer v. AntisellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Toomy v. DunphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Landis v. W. H. Fuqua, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1942
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.