Condee v. Barton
CHARLES H. CONDEE v. HIRAM M. BARTON
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
The Court:
We know of no principle that would estop the plaintiffs from claiming their commission, because the “ memorandum of agreement” describes the defendant as owner of the property to be sold.
We can see no objection to the practice of changing the conclusions of law, based upon the finding of facts at any time before judgment is entered. The declaration of the general conclusion of law from the facts found, is the rendition of the judgment in so far, as that, when entered, the *6judgment entered may relate to such rendition for certain purposes. But this does not make the conclusions of law first announced final and beyond the reach of the Court. There is no judgment which is final until a judgment is recorded.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Cited by
- Gury v. Gury Docket No. 497. · 1931-05-28
- Hume v. Lindholm Docket No. 4816. · 1927-08-13
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Superior Court Docket No. S.F. 11700. · 1925-12-28
- Brownell v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty. S.F. No. 5424. · 1910-05-14
- Ex Parte Monckros Von Vetsera Crim. No. 117. · 1907-12-19
- First National Bank v. Dusy No. 18409 · 1895-11-14
- Herrlich v. McDonald No. 15562 · 1894-11-27
- County of Los Angeles v. Lankershim No. 19235 · 1893-12-26
- Broder v. Conklin 18104 · 1893-05-27
- Crim v. Kessing No. 13279 · 1891-06-18
- O'Brien v. O'Brien S. F. No. 1070 · 1889-05-17
- In re the Estate of Cook No. 12200 · 1888-10-23