Rylee v. De Fini
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
1Opinion of the CourtBishop, Acting P. J.
The plaintiffs are faced with a dilemma, as they defend their judgment of $725: if the issues are restricted to the two framed as a result of a pretrial conference, the vital one of those issues must be resolved against them; and if the issues are as broad as the findings, then the evidence fails to support an essential finding.
The action is one for a broker’s commission. As the facts are set forth in the second cause of action of the amended complaint, we must disregard the first cause of action, in which they are pleaded as a common count. (Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust Co. (1941), 17 Cal.2d…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
- Neal v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Twogood v. MonnetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Krotzer v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Lathrop v. GaugerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Addiego v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Patrick J. Ruane, Inc. v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Born v. KoopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Wright v. BuzzineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.