Rucker v. Hall
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Haynes, C.
The plaintiffs were real estate brokers at San Jose, doing business as J. E. Rucker & Son. The defendant, Mary Hall, in writing, appointed the plaintiffs her agents for the sale of certain lands, and which authorization contained the following clauses: “The said J. E. Rucker & Son shall have complete control of all sales to purchasers furnished by them, or through their agency, and I agree, in case I shall sell or dispose of such property to any customer furnished by said J. E. Rucker & Son, to pay them three per cent commission on such sales.
“ Should I find a purchaser independent…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Whitney v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Wilson v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Sadler v. OlmsteadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
3Cited by16 opinions
- Goldwater v. OltmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Tanforan v. TanforanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Blankenship v. DeckerMontana Supreme Court · 1906
- Baumgartner v. MeekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- E. D. Metcalf Co. v. GilbertWyoming Supreme Court · 1911
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.