Moore v. Henderson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Moore v. Henderson

124 So. 702, 11 La. App. 674, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 310

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 18, 1929

DocketNo. 11,313

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 So. 702 (Moore v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. Henderson, 124 So. 702, 11 La. App. 674, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 310 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff sues for $577.50, which he claims defendant promised to rebate to him in the event he was willing to go through with a real estate transaction out of which defendant made a commission of $1,155. Payment was resisted on the ground that plaintiff could not receive any part of the real estate commission as he was not a licensed real estate broker and was prohibited from receiving a commission by Section 19 of Act 236 of 1920.

Defendant’s attorneys, however, in this court concede that the case of Gonzales vs. Watson et ux., 162 La. 1048, 111 So. 416, is decisive of the question and is authority for plaintiff’s claim. Lowewngaratt vs. Freeland, 11 La. App. 582, 123 So. 340, seems also to fully answer plaintiff’s contention.

The trial court rendered judgment as prayed for in favor of plaintiff and, under the authority referred to, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from be and it is affirmed at the cost of appellant.

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

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff sues for $577.50, which he claims defendant promised to rebate to him in the event he was willing to go through with a real estate transaction out of which defendant made a commission of $1,155. Payment was resisted on the ground that plaintiff could not receive any part of the real estate commission as he was not a licensed real estate broker and was prohibited from receiving a commission by Section 19 of Act 236 of 1920.

Defendant’s attorneys, however, in this court concede that the case of Gonzales vs. Watson et ux., 162 La. 1048, 111 So. 416, is decisive of the question and is authority for plaintiff’s claim. Lowewngaratt vs. Freeland, 11 La. App. 582, 123 So. 340, seems also to fully answer plaintiff’s contention.

The trial court rendered judgment as prayed for in favor of plaintiff and, under the authority referred to, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from be and it is affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 So. 702, 11 La. App. 674, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-henderson-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack