Smith v. Geis

Ohio Circuit Courts

Smith v. Geis

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 666

DecidedJuly 9, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 666 (Smith v. Geis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Geis, 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 666 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

GIFFEN, P. J.

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 and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

GIFFEN, P. J.

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 and Swing, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-geis-ohiocirct-1910.