McPhail v. Buell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara Comity, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
The appellant brought this action to recover for commissions alleged to have been due him for making sale of certain real estate for the respondent.
The complaint is in different counts, one upon a special contract agreeing to pay the commissions, and the others relying upon a verbal contract and upon the quantum meruit. There could be no recovery on either of the last two counts, because the code of this state requires that, to entitle a .broker to recover commissions in this class of cases, his contract therefor must be in *116writing. (Civ. Code, sec. 1624; McCarthy v. Loup, 62 Cal. 302.)
It is…
2Cited by32 opinions
- Amies v. WesnofskeNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Augustine v. TruccoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Columbia Realty Investment Co. v. Alameda Land Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Dunne v. ColombCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Duffy v. DuffyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.