Quiggle v. Prouty

California Supreme Court

Quiggle v. Prouty

45 P. 676, 5 Cal. Unrep. 398

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 16, 1896

DocketS. F. No. 105

StatusPublished

This text of 45 P. 676 (Quiggle v. Prouty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quiggle v. Prouty, 45 P. 676, 5 Cal. Unrep. 398 (Cal. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

TEMPLE, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiff is entitled to recover commissions for the sale of a lot at Sacramento. Defendant placed with plaintiff, as broker, a certain lot for sale, to remain in his hands for one year, with the condition that “if a sale of said property shall be negotiated during that time by the said Chas. Quiggle, directly or indirectly, for the amount stipulated, or any less amount which I may accept, .... I promise to pay the said Chas. Quiggle a commission of five per cent on the amount of said sale.” A broker’s contract, like .any other, is governed by its terms. There is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that plaintiff negotiated a sale of the property placed in his hands. The judgment is affirmed.

.We concur: McFarland, J.; Henshaw, J.

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

TEMPLE, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiff is entitled to recover commissions for the sale of a lot at Sacramento. Defendant placed with plaintiff, as broker, a certain lot for sale, to remain in his hands for one year, with the condition that “if a sale of said property shall be negotiated during that time by the said Chas. Quiggle, directly or indirectly, for the amount stipulated, or any less amount which I may accept, .... I promise to pay the said Chas. Quiggle a commission of five per cent on the amount of said sale.” A broker’s contract, like .any other, is governed by its terms. There is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that plaintiff negotiated a sale of the property placed in his hands. The judgment is affirmed.

.We concur: McFarland, J.; Henshaw, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 P. 676, 5 Cal. Unrep. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quiggle-v-prouty-cal-1896.