Houston v. Williams
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action was for a broker’s commission for the sale of real estate and the plaintiff had judgment, from which the appeal is taken. The cause of action is set forth in identical phraseology in two counts except for the provisions of paragraph 3 in each count. Said paragraph in the first count is as follows: “That thereafter, and prior to the time limited for the expiration of said contract, plaintiff by his own efforts procured one, G. A. Lombardi, as a purchaser of said real property, at the price and .upon the terms and conditions fixed by said contract (Exhibit ‘A’). That on or about the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Mattingly v. PennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Dole v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Cushing v. PiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Roth v. MoellerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Norwood v. JuddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Wise v. RadisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Davis v. ChipmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.