Legal Opinion

Darrow v. Houlihan

California Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1928No. Docket No. L.A. 10753PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

Plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from an adverse judgment entered in an action brought to recover $600 broker’s commissions alleged to be due Mm for Ms services in attempting to effect an exchange of properties between defendants and W. S. and Lillian M. Little. On August 19, 1924, the defendants in writing authorized the plaintiff to negotiate an exchange of their property for that of the Littles, the offer to remain open for a period of ten days. It was stipulated in the agreement that each of the exchanging parties was to assume an “indebtedness” of $2,000 on the property received in the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Spreckels v. GorrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. American National Bank of San Francisco v. A. G. Sommerville, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Jauman v. McCusickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Mooney v. CyriacksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Jennings v. JordanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hefferan v. FreebairnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Earl v. Saks & Co.California Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Schied v. Bodinson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Guthrie v. Times-Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. K. Lundeen Corp. v. BarlowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

10 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