Cohen v. P. J. Spitz Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
Section 8621 of our statute of frauds provides that “no action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant * * * upon an agreement, promise or contract to pay any commission for or upon the sale of an interest in real estate,” unless the agreement or memorandum thereof is in writing and signed by the party charged, etc.
It is not contended that an action will lie for a commission upon an oral contract between an owner and real estate broker, but is rather conceded that no such action will lie. It is urged, however, that our statute should not be construed so as to prevent an action…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gorham v. HeimanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Smith v. StarkeMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Provident Trust Co. v. DarroughIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Sherman v. Clear View Orchard Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Jones v. KehoeWashington Supreme Court · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Schneider v. LaffoonOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Dura v. Walker, Hart & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Goen v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
- Warren v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1945
- Nichols v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.