Legal Opinion

Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. Pratt

California Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1941No. L. A. 16070PublishedCited by 80 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, J.

The appellant, Franklin L. Pratt, a licensed life insurance broker, had written several policies of life insurance for John G. Bullock of Los Angeles. In 1928 Bullock decided to take out additional life insurance amounting to $150,000 under an arrangement that would enable his son-in-law, Richard W. Fewel, to receive half of the commissions. Fewel was in debt to Bullock, and the latter wanted him to earn a share of the commissions so that he could meet his obligations. On July 10, 1928, Pratt and Fewel met in Bullock’s office to make arrangements for working together. Pratt refused to work…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Herbert v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Reese v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Levinson v. BoasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Lefrooth v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Kreamer v. EarlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by80 opinions

  1. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  3. MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Norwood v. JuddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Potter v. Pacific Coast Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1951

75 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