Legal Opinion
Snook v. Page
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 21, 1915No. Civ. No. 1435PublishedCited by 20 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The appeal is" from a judgment of nonsuit in an action for the recovery of $3,630, claimed as commissions for the sale of real property. The contract of agency, as far as necessary to quote, was as follows:
“Por value received, and in consideration of the agreement on the part of Snook & Nelson, hereinafter contained, to perforin services for me, I appoint said Snook & Nelson, my agents, and as such authorize them to sell for me within one hundred and twenty days from date hereof, the following described property: . . . Said property may be sold as a whole or in such subdivisions as herein…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Norton v. Shelby CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Kimmell v. SkellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Heyn v. O'HagenMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Dole v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Crane v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Houston v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- California Land Security Co. v. RitchieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Wilck v. HerbertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Faith v. MeisetschlagerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- H. I. Stahlman, Jr., General Partner, and Wife, Mrs. J. S. Stahlman, Limited Partner, D/B/A Stahlman Lumber Company, Ltd. v. National Lead CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.