Zeimer v. Antisell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Belcher, C. C.
On the twenty-eighth day of June, 1883, the defendant in writing authorized David Levitzky, a real estate broker, to offer for sale certain real property which defendant owned in the city of Oakland, and agreed, if Levitzky should find a purchaser of the property for the sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, to pay him a commission of two and a half per cent for his services. By express provision, the agreement and Levitzky’s authority under it were to terminate at the end of thirty days from its date.
Within the thirty days allowed, Levitzky found and introduced…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Wylie v. . Marine National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- McGavock v. WoodliefSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- McCarthy v. LoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Fultz v. WimerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Toomy v. DunphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hicks v. PostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Brown v. MasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Shanklin v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Ropes v. John Rosenfeld's SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.