Parsons & Nelson, Inc. v. Von Der Lohe

California Court of Appeal

Parsons & Nelson, Inc. v. Von Der Lohe

7 P.2d 697, 120 Cal. App. 277

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 28, 1932

DocketDocket No. 6953.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 P.2d 697 (Parsons & Nelson, Inc. v. Von Der Lohe) 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

Parsons & Nelson, Inc. v. Von Der Lohe, 7 P.2d 697, 120 Cal. App. 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is an action for the recovery of a real estate commission in which judgment went for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals therefrom.

*278 It was found by the court that there was no written memorandum employing appellant or its agent to act as agent nor to pay it a commission, except that certain escrow instructions, which were canceled shortly after being executed, authorized the escrow-holder to pay a definite sum to appellant’s agent “at close of escrow”. It is further found that the prospective purchaser refused to proceed with the sale and “said sale was never consummated and said escrow never closed”.

The record comes to us by way of a bill of exceptions, containing no specifications of error and concluding with a stipulation of counsel that it “contains only part of the evidence offered”, and with a certificate of the trial judge to the same effect with this addition, that there was “sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the court”. With this condition of the record before us there remains but one thing to do, and that is to affirm the judgment for the reason that appellant has altogether failed to show error or any reason for its reversal. (Platner v. Vincent, 194 Cal. 436 [229 Pac. 24].)

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

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

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is an action for the recovery of a real estate commission in which judgment went for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals therefrom.

*278 It was found by the court that there was no written memorandum employing appellant or its agent to act as agent nor to pay it a commission, except that certain escrow instructions, which were canceled shortly after being executed, authorized the escrow-holder to pay a definite sum to appellant’s agent “at close of escrow”. It is further found that the prospective purchaser refused to proceed with the sale and “said sale was never consummated and said escrow never closed”.

The record comes to us by way of a bill of exceptions, containing no specifications of error and concluding with a stipulation of counsel that it “contains only part of the evidence offered”, and with a certificate of the trial judge to the same effect with this addition, that there was “sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the court”. With this condition of the record before us there remains but one thing to do, and that is to affirm the judgment for the reason that appellant has altogether failed to show error or any reason for its reversal. (Platner v. Vincent, 194 Cal. 436 [229 Pac. 24].)

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 P.2d 697, 120 Cal. App. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-nelson-inc-v-von-der-lohe-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack