Alderson v. Houston
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the superior court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial* Charles Monroe, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
The complaint states a cause of action for the breach of a contract on the part of defendant, as owner of forty-three lots in the city of Los Angeles, empowering the plaintiffs as real estate brokers to sell the said lots.
The contract is dated May 17, 1904. It declares that the defendant is the owner of forty-three lots, describing them, and gives to plaintiffs the right to the exclusive sale thereof for the period of eighteen months from its date. It contained the following provision:
“All sales are…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Hinckley v. Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- United States v. SpeedSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Brigham & Co. v. CarlisleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Gold Mining & Water Co. v. SwinertonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Steelduct Co. v. Henger-Seltzer Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.