Armstrong v. Lowe
W. M. ARMSTRONG v. D. LOWE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Hayne (author)
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 — Hayne
Hayne, C.
The sole question in this case is, whether the real estate brokers whom the defendant employed “to sell”' certain real property had authority to execute a contract to convey. We think that upon the authority of Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 244, 245, 6 Am. Rep. 617, it must be held that they had not, and that the case of Rutenberg v. Main, 47 Cal. 219, is not in point.
We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.
*618Foote, C., concurred.
Belcher, C. C., took no part in this opinion.
The Court.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Duffy v. Hobson No. 2,467 · 1870-10-15
Cited by
- Meyer v. State Board of Equalization Sac. 6273 · 1954-03-01
- Holway v. Malloy Civ. 14712 · 1945-07-26
- Norton v. Overholtzer Civ. No. 4060. · 1923-08-04
- Gold v. Phelan Civ. No. 3909. · 1922-07-05
- Slater v. Rauer Civ. No. 2936. · 1919-10-24
- Thompson v. Scholl Civ. No. 2013. · 1916-11-08
- Salter v. Ives L. A. No. 3620. · 1916-01-31
- Jauman v. McCusick L.A. No. 3237. · 1913-12-09
- Church v. Collins Civ. No. 921. · 1912-04-24
- Bacon v. Davis Civ. No. 491. · 1908-09-22
- Stemler v. Bass L.A. No. 2060. · 1908-07-02
- White v. Bank of Hanford Sac. No. 1251. · 1906-01-27
- Martin v. Ede No. 13360 · 1894-06-18
- Grant v. Ede No. 12784 · 1890-09-01
- Phelps v. Prusch No. 12738 · 1890-05-02