Rutenberg v. Main
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth-Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The complaint averred that the plaintiff owned a lot on Battery Street, San Francisco, and that, about September 29th, 1868, he, by his agent, sold it to the defendants, as partners, for $50,000 in gold coin, $2,500 to be deposited with Maurice Dore & Co.- until a deed of 'conveyance was executed by the plaintiff, who was at Bremen, in Germany; the balance of the purchase money and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth-Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The complaint averred that the plaintiff owned a lot on Battery Street, San Francisco, and that, about September 29th, 1868, he, by his agent, sold it to the defendants, as partners, for $50,000 in gold coin, $2,500 to be deposited with Maurice Dore & Co.- until a deed of 'conveyance was executed by the plaintiff, who was at Bremen, in Germany; the balance of the purchase money and the $2,500 to be paid when the deed was received. That defendants, by Maurice Dore & Co., agreed in writing to pay the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
The writing—Exhibit E—signed by Meinecke, as-attomey in fact for the plaintiff, was sufficient in form, and was executed in such manner as complied with the Statute of Frauds. The statute only requires that the memorandum of sale of real property shall be signed by the vendor, or his agent. (Act concerning fraudulent conveyances, Sections 8 and 9.) The writing need not be a specialty, and it is well settled that a power to execute simple parol contracts may be verbal.
It is said Meinecke had power to find a purchaser satisfactory to the plaintiff, but none to make…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Duffy v. HobsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by24 opinions
- Carstens v. McReavyWashington Supreme Court · 1890
- Cannon v. HandleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Roehl v. HaumesserIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Dillingham v. DahlgrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- McDonald v. HuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.