Armstrong v. Lowe

California Supreme Court

Armstrong v. Lowe

18 P. 758, 76 Cal. 616, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 948

California Supreme Court·Decided June 19, 1888·No. No. 12540·Published·Cited by 33 cases

Opinion

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.

[618] Foote, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

[618] Foote, 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.

Armstrong v. Lowe, 18 P. 758, 76 Cal. 616, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 948 (Cal. 1888).

Pincite

18 P. 758 (Armstrong v. Lowe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related