Nelson v. Darling

California Court of Appeal

Nelson v. Darling

284 P. 1095, 103 Cal. App. 523, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 820

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 29, 1930

DocketDocket No. 5874.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 P. 1095 (Nelson v. Darling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nelson v. Darling, 284 P. 1095, 103 Cal. App. 523, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 820 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause is before us on the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal taken from a judgment of the Superior Court affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles. The action was for the recovery of real estate broker's commissions, and it is evident from an inspection of the clerk's transcript that the cause of action arose within the city of Los Angeles, where the plaintiff brokers had their office and where the agreement for exchange of properties and payment of commissions was entered into.

[1] Where the cause of action in a suit commenced in the Municipal Court arises, as disclosed by the record therein, in the city in which such court is situated, an appeal lies only to the Superior Court, and the judgment of that tribunal is final. (Johnston v. Wolf, 208 Cal. 286 [280 P. 980]; Nelson v.Thomas, ante, p. 108 [283 P. 982].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Craig, Acting P.J., and Thompson (Ira F.), J., concurred.

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

This cause is before us on the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal taken from a judgment of the Superior Court affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles. The action was for the recovery of real estate broker's commissions, and it is evident from an inspection of the clerk's transcript that the cause of action arose within the city of Los Angeles, where the plaintiff brokers had their office and where the agreement for exchange of properties and payment of commissions was entered into.

[1] Where the cause of action in a suit commenced in the Municipal Court arises, as disclosed by the record therein, in the city in which such court is situated, an appeal lies only to the Superior Court, and the judgment of that tribunal is final. (Johnston v. Wolf, 208 Cal. 286 [280 P. 980]; Nelson v.Thomas, ante, p. 108 [283 P. 982].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Craig, Acting P.J., and Thompson (Ira F.), J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 P. 1095, 103 Cal. App. 523, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-darling-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack