Dinkelspiel v. Nason
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
On July 28, 1904, plaintiff entered into a broker’s contract with defendants for the sale of certain real property. Plaintiff was authorized to sell the property for $30,000 or any less sum accepted by defendants, and he was to receive a commission of five per cent. This provision was also in the agreement: “We also agree to pay said Edward Dinkelspiel, in the event of the sale of said property by him, or by anyone else, including ourselves, while this agreement is in force five per cent as and for his compensation thereunder.” The contract was to continue until withdrawn by defendants in…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Brackenridge v. Claridge & PayneTexas Supreme Court · 1898
- Hoadley v. Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Coward v. ClantonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Phelan v. GardnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Brown v. MasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Christensen v. DuborgNevada Supreme Court · 1915
- Ertell v. Lloyd's Food Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1953