Legal Opinion

Roth v. Moeller

California Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 1921No. L. A. No. 6509PublishedCited by 29 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. H. T. Dewhirst, Judge. Affirmed and reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.

This action was instituted for the recovery of compensation for services alleged to have been rendered under a contract in writing, whereby the defendant Mrs. Maria Moeller authorized the plaintiff Roth and cross-defendant King to submit to one Richardson a proposition for the exchange of an orange grove which belonged to defend ant Moeller for real property owned by said Richardson. Roth and King were engaged in the real estate business, King residing and having his office in the city of Los Angeles, while Roth resided in a country district near the home and property of defendant. The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Marin Water & Power Co. v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Boehm v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Sill v. CeschiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Blumenthal v. GoodallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Parke v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. People v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Kissic v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
  3. Elevator Operators & Starters' Union v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Houston v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. Davis v. JacobyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934

24 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