Smith v. Geis

Hamilton Circuit Court

Smith v. Geis

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 336 (Smith v. Geis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 336, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-geis-ohcircthamilton-1910.