gno.law

Quiggle v. Prouty

California Supreme Court · S. F. No. 105 · 1896-07-16 · Published · 5 Cal. Unrep. 398 · 45 P. 676 · 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1066

QUIGGLE v. PROUTY

Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Jackson Temple (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 — Temple

TEMPLE, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiff is entitled to recover commissions for the sale of a lot at Sacramento. Defendant placed with plaintiff, as broker, a certain lot for sale, to remain in his hands for one year, with the condition that “if a sale of said property shall be negotiated during that time by the said Chas. Quiggle, directly or indirectly, for the amount stipulated, or any less amount which I may accept, .... I promise to pay the said Chas. Quiggle a commission of five per cent on the amount of said sale.” A broker’s contract, like .any other, is governed by its terms. There is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that plaintiff negotiated a sale of the property placed in his hands. The judgment is affirmed.

.We concur: McFarland, J.; Henshaw, J.