Legal Opinion

Kimmell v. Skelly

California Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1900No. S.F. No. 1726PublishedCited by 51 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This action is brought by the assignee of the real estate firm of Hooker & Lent, and is based upon a broker’s contract entered into by defendant April 10, 1897. Tire material parts of this contract are as follows: “For and in consideration of the services to be performed by Messrs. Hooker & Lent, I hereby employ them as my sole and exclusive agents to sell for me that certain real property..... This employment and authority shall continue for the full period of thirty days from the date hereof and thereafter until withdrawn by me in writing; and I agree to pay to said Hooker & Lent, in the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crane v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Maze v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Axe v. TolbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Blank v. BordenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Central Idaho Agency, Inc. v. TurnerIdaho Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Cloe v. RogersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  5. Fleming v. DolfinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

46 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