Burnham v. Abegglen

Ninth Circuit

Burnham v. Abegglen

187 F.2d 1021, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2353

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1951

Docket12648

StatusPublished

This text of 187 F.2d 1021 (Burnham v. Abegglen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burnham v. Abegglen, 187 F.2d 1021, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2353 (9th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Trial Court found Abegglen was employed by the Burnhams by “contract in writing to sell certain real and personal property,” as agent, for $140,000, providing he “should receive a commission of $6,000 in the event he sold said property,” that Abegglen interested the Randalls, and an agreement was executed between the Burnhams and the Randalls for sale and purchase of said property at the price asked, that “plaintiff [Abegglen] was free from misconduct, concealment or misrepresentation in all of his dealings with defendants [Burnhams].” After learning of a supposed inadequate security for performance on the part of one of the Ran-dalls, the contract of purchase and sale was modified by mutual consent of the Burn-hams and the Randalls, and subsequently, for a consideration moving to the Burn-hams, a rescission of the modified contract of purchase and sale was entered between the Burnhams and the Randalls, “without the knowledge, consent or approval of the plaintiff [Abegglen].”

If these facts are found, there are no questions of law raised upon the record. The findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not “clearly erroneous.” Therefore, these are binding upon us, and the judgment stands. Based on the findings, plaintiff was awarded commission in full.

We affirm upon the basis of the excellent opinion of the Trial Court, 91 F.Supp. 61.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Trial Court found Abegglen was employed by the Burnhams by “contract in writing to sell certain real and personal property,” as agent, for $140,000, providing he “should receive a commission of $6,000 in the event he sold said property,” that Abegglen interested the Randalls, and an agreement was executed between the Burnhams and the Randalls for sale and purchase of said property at the price asked, that “plaintiff [Abegglen] was free from misconduct, concealment or misrepresentation in all of his dealings with defendants [Burnhams].” After learning of a supposed inadequate security for performance on the part of one of the Ran-dalls, the contract of purchase and sale was modified by mutual consent of the Burn-hams and the Randalls, and subsequently, for a consideration moving to the Burn-hams, a rescission of the modified contract of purchase and sale was entered between the Burnhams and the Randalls, “without the knowledge, consent or approval of the plaintiff [Abegglen].”

If these facts are found, there are no questions of law raised upon the record. The findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not “clearly erroneous.” Therefore, these are binding upon us, and the judgment stands. Based on the findings, plaintiff was awarded commission in full.

We affirm upon the basis of the excellent opinion of the Trial Court, 91 F.Supp. 61.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F.2d 1021, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnham-v-abegglen-ca9-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack