Clark v. Ellsworth
Arizona Supreme Court
1Dissent
LaPRADE, Justice (dissenting).
I cannot bring myself to concur in the majority opinion. We are all agreed on the fundamental rules involved. A broker to be entitled to a commission must have been the efficient, proximate, and procuring cause of the sale. Garver v. Thoman, 15 Ariz. 38, 135 P. 724; Leadville Mining Co. v. Hemphill, 17 Ariz. 146, 149 P. 384; Miller Cattle Co. v. Chambers, 36 Ariz. 282, 285 P. 277; Fink v. Williamson, 62 Ariz. 379, 158 P.2d 159. In the Leadville Mining Co. case, supra [17 Ariz. 146, 149 P. 387], this court said: “It is very clear that if the employment of a broker…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kacavas v. DiamondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Whitcomb v. BaconMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Garver v. ThomanArizona Supreme Court · 1913
- Gleason v. NelsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Winchester v. EricksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.