Hicks v. Christeson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. John J. Van Nostrand, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The action was one by which plaintiff sought to recover, $893.90 as damages for defendant’s failure to carry into effect an alleged agreement for the sale of real property located in Texas. It was the contention of respondent that defendant was bound under the terms of a written contract of employment to pay to him the amount sued for, by reason of Christeson’s failure to carry out an arrangement negotiated by plaintiff for the sale of the property to one McCrory.
The date of the original contract between…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mattingly v. PennieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Gunn v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Massie v. ChatomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Mott v. MinorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Dreyfus v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. v. Bbtc CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Warner Bros. Pictures v. BrodelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Ludy v. ZumwaltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Seeburg v. El Royale Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1942
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.