Calhoun v. Eysenbach

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Calhoun v. Eysenbach

1912 OK 450, 124 P. 978, 34 Okla. 185, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 376

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 25, 1912

Docket1887

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1912 OK 450 (Calhoun v. Eysenbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calhoun v. Eysenbach, 1912 OK 450, 124 P. 978, 34 Okla. 185, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 376 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

AMES, C.

The only question involved in this case is whether an ordinance of the city of Tulsa requiring real estate brokers to pay a license tax, and providing that it shall be a misdemeanor to engage in the business without the payment of the tax, prevents a broker, who has not paid the license from recovering on a contract under which he has earned his 'commission. The issue is determined against the defendant by the case of Hughes v. Snell, 28 Okla. 828, 115 Pac. 1105, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1133, and it is unnecessary to examine the numerous authorities cited in the able brief of the plaintiff in error,*as that case determines the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

We think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

AMES, C.

The only question involved in this case is whether an ordinance of the city of Tulsa requiring real estate brokers to pay a license tax, and providing that it shall be a misdemeanor to engage in the business without the payment of the tax, prevents a broker, who has not paid the license from recovering on a contract under which he has earned his 'commission. The issue is determined against the defendant by the case of Hughes v. Snell, 28 Okla. 828, 115 Pac. 1105, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1133, and it is unnecessary to examine the numerous authorities cited in the able brief of the plaintiff in error,*as that case determines the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

We think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 450, 124 P. 978, 34 Okla. 185, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calhoun-v-eysenbach-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack