Legal Opinion
Bail v. Glantz
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 17, 1926No. Docket No. 5391PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $1,000 claimed to be due as real estate commissions and was given judgment for $500. Defendant has ap-° pealed upon the grounds that plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment for any amount and that the trial court erred in excluding a portion of defendant’s evidence. Plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the amount of the judgment, has also appealed.
The written contract of agency between the parties, dated October 18, 1923, conferred upon plaintiff as agent, for a period of fifteen days following the execution of the contract, the exclusive…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Twogood v. MonnetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Johnson v. KrierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Roth v. ThomsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Smith v. PreissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Brea v. McGlashanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Freeman v. JerginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Chamberlain v. AbelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Crosby v. Pacific S. S. Lines, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
- Zalk v. General Exploration Co.California Court of Appeal · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.