Legal Opinion
Leventritt v. Cowell
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 4, 1913No. Civ. No. 1183PublishedCited by 12 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. J. J. Van Nostrand, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $1,883.70 as broker’s commissions for procuring a tenant for defendants. Judgment went for defendants, and plaintiff in due time appealed to this court from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Defendants, through one of their number admitted to have sufficient authority therefor, signed and delivered to plaintiff a writing in the words as follows:
“San Francisco, April 14th, 1904.
“Mr. A. H. Leventritt, City.—Dear Sir: If you will secure for us a tenant satisfactory to us for the building we contemplate erecting on the land…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McPhail v. BuellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hale v. KumlerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Seymour v. St. Luke's HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Oullahan v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Holbrook v. Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Cochran v. EllsworthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Sloan v. StearnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Solomon v. Neisner Bros.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1950
- Ridgway v. ChaseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Denbo v. Weston Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.