Condee v. Barton

62 Cal. 1, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 684
California Supreme Court·Decided November 6, 1882·No. No. 8,668·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

The Court:

We know of no principle that would estop the plaintiffs from claiming their commission, because the memorandum of agreement” describes the defendant as owner of the property to be sold.

We can see no objection to the practice of changing the conclusions of law, based upon the finding of facts at any time before judgment is entered. The declaration of the general conclusion of law from the facts found, is the rendition of the judgment in so far, as that, when entered, the [6] judgment entered may relate to such rendition for certain purposes. But this does not make the conclusions of law first announced final and beyond the reach of the Court. There is no judgment which is final until a judgment is recorded.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

Condee v. Barton, 62 Cal. 1, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 684 (Cal. 1882).

62 Cal. 1 (Condee v. Barton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tully v. Davis
N.D. California, 2020
Blakely Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Reynolds Bros. Lumber Co.
160 S.E. 775 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Gury v. Gury
300 P. 81 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Hume v. Lindholm
258 P. 1003 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Tulare Irrigation District v. Superior Court
242 P. 725 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
Brownell v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty.
109 P. 91 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Cline Piano Co. v. Sherwood
106 P. 742 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
Ex Parte Monckros Von Vetsera
93 P. 1036 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
State ex rel. Brown v. Brown
62 L.R.A. 974 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
First National Bank v. Dusy
42 P. 476 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Herrlich v. McDonald
38 P. 360 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
County of Los Angeles v. Lankershim
35 P. 153 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Broder v. Conklin
33 P. 211 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Crim v. Kessing
26 P. 1074 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
O'Brien v. O'Brien
124 Cal. 422 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
In re the Estate of Cook
19 P. 431 (California Supreme Court, 1888)