Dickenson v. P. J. Hooker Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Dickenson v. P. J. Hooker Co.

155 N.E. 573, 23 Ohio App. 230, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 341, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 344

DecidedNovember 22, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.E. 573 (Dickenson v. P. J. Hooker Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickenson v. P. J. Hooker Co., 155 N.E. 573, 23 Ohio App. 230, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 341, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 344 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

The P. J. Hooker Company brought an action in the Lucas Common Pleas to recover commission on a written contract' for sale of real estate. The trial court at the conclusion of all the evidence directed a verdict in favor of the company, and judgment was rendered thereon.

The rights of the parties depended upon the contract in which was rontained provisions that if the Hooker Co. would advertise and endeavor to sell said property, Mrs. Dickenson would pay a commission of 10% and they were to receive the commission whether they or any other person sold the property and this agreement was to remain in force until written notice was given to the contrary. There was a stipulation that it could be terminated after (here a blank was left and there was some dispute as to the length of time of the contract) but same must be terminated by written notice.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. Evidence as to whether the blank space was filled up to read 80 days or 3 months is immaterial as written notice was required before termination.

2. ■ From all the terms of the contract we cannot see how the court could do otherwise than direct a verdict for the Hooker Co.

Judgment affirmed.

(Culbert & Williams, JJ., concur.)

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

RICHARDS, J.

The P. J. Hooker Company brought an action in the Lucas Common Pleas to recover commission on a written contract' for sale of real estate. The trial court at the conclusion of all the evidence directed a verdict in favor of the company, and judgment was rendered thereon.

The rights of the parties depended upon the contract in which was rontained provisions that if the Hooker Co. would advertise and endeavor to sell said property, Mrs. Dickenson would pay a commission of 10% and they were to receive the commission whether they or any other person sold the property and this agreement was to remain in force until written notice was given to the contrary. There was a stipulation that it could be terminated after (here a blank was left and there was some dispute as to the length of time of the contract) but same must be terminated by written notice.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. Evidence as to whether the blank space was filled up to read 80 days or 3 months is immaterial as written notice was required before termination.

2. ■ From all the terms of the contract we cannot see how the court could do otherwise than direct a verdict for the Hooker Co.

Judgment affirmed.

(Culbert & Williams, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.E. 573, 23 Ohio App. 230, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 341, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickenson-v-p-j-hooker-co-ohioctapp-1926.