Smith v. Geis

Ohio Circuit Courts

Smith v. Geis

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 666

Ohio Circuit Courts·Decided July 9, 1910·Published

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.

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

Pincite

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 666 (Smith v. Geis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.