Armstrong v. Lowe

California Supreme Court

Armstrong v. Lowe

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

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 19, 1888

DocketNo. 12540

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 18 P. 758 (Armstrong v. Lowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*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.

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