gno.law

Waterman v. Boltinghouse

California Supreme Court · No. 13377 · 1890-01-31 · Published · 82 Cal. 659 · 23 P. 195 · 1890 Cal. LEXIS 626

JAMES A. WATERMAN v. F. M. BOLTINGHOUSE

Area
civil
Panel
James D. Thornton (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 — Thornton

Thornton, J.

This is an action by plaintiff to recover commissions for an alleged sale of land. He never produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy on the terms of his employer, the defendant. He cannot, therefore, recover. (Dolan v. Scanlan, 57 Cal. 261; Moses v. Bierling, 31 N. Y. 462; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378; 22 Am. Rep. 441.)

Here the plaintiff had the exclusive right to sell for a term ending January 1, 1889, and the defendant, during this period, himself effected a sale. Though the plaintiff had the right to sell, to the exclusion of his employer, still he cannot recover his commissions unless he has produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy as above stated. This is expressly held, and correctly held, in Moses v. Bierling, supra, which is a case similar to this.

The plaintiff argues this case as if it was a suit to recover damages for defendant’s breach of contract. The complaint does not set forth any such action, but one to recover the compensation agreed to be paid on a sale.

There is no error.

Judgment affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by