Legal Opinion

Troendle v. Clinch

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 29, 1932No. Docket No. 7388PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TAPPAAN, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff and respondent here recovered a judgment as against defendants and appellants, Clinch and Thurtle, real estate brokers and copartners, and one Donnell, the mother-in-law of defendant Clinch. No judgment was had as against defendant Weadon.

The evidence as presented upon this appeal discloses the following facts. Plaintiff for some years prior to the transactions here involved was the owner of a certain house and lot in the city of Los Angeles and had attempted to sell or trade the same. She had at different times listed this property with various real estate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Neff v. EnglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. McPhetridge v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  4. McBride v. McCartneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Troendle v. ClinchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. NaplesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1954
  3. Orfanos v. California Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API