Smith v. Geis

Hamilton Circuit Court

Smith v. Geis

13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 336, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 270

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided July 9, 1910·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover commission under a written contract with a real estate agent whereby he is allowed a commission in the event the property is sold through the efforts of the agent, owner, or any other person during the existence of the contract at any price acceptable to the owner, parol testimony is inadmissible to show a contemporaneous agreement to except a sale made to a certain prospective purchaser from the operation of the contract.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

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

In an action to recover commission under a written contract with a real estate agent whereby he is allowed a commission in the event the property is sold through the efforts of the agent, owner, or any other person during the existence of the contract at any price acceptable to the owner, parol testimony is inadmissible to show a contemporaneous agreement to except a sale made to a certain prospective purchaser from the operation of the contract.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Smith v. Geis, 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 336, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 270 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 336 (Smith v. Geis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.