Thompson v. Salmon

California Supreme Court

Thompson v. Salmon

18 Cal. 632, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 256

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 Cal. 632 (Thompson v. Salmon) 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

Thompson v. Salmon, 18 Cal. 632, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 256 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

It seems that the plaintiff was employed by special agreement as the agent of the defendant and others to render services in respect to the land in Sonoma. The fact, therefore, that he was himself an owner in the tract, does not prevent his enforcing his claim for compensation under his agreement. The compensation to be paid does not seem to have been agreed on. The defendant at different times returned accounts of moneys received, expenses paid and commissions retained on sales of the land, but not including the charge now made. This did not, we think, absolutely preclude him from making afterwards this monthly charge for services, whatever the effect of the admission as against the reasonableness of the charge. (1 Greenl. Ev. 212 ; Loveridge v. Botham, 1 B. & P. 49.) We do not understand that these accounts were offered as stated accounts, or as proofs of accounts stated. No instruction was asked on the trial on the subject, nor were other facts than the rendering of the accounts in this connection offered. The cases cited by the appellant do not therefore apply.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

It seems that the plaintiff was employed by special agreement as the agent of the defendant and others to render services in respect to the land in Sonoma. The fact, therefore, that he was himself an owner in the tract, does not prevent his enforcing his claim for compensation under his agreement. The compensation to be paid does not seem to have been agreed on. The defendant at different times returned accounts of moneys received, expenses paid and commissions retained on sales of the land, but not including the charge now made. This did not, we think, absolutely preclude him from making afterwards this monthly charge for services, whatever the effect of the admission as against the reasonableness of the charge. (1 Greenl. Ev. 212 ; Loveridge v. Botham, 1 B. & P. 49.) We do not understand that these accounts were offered as stated accounts, or as proofs of accounts stated. No instruction was asked on the trial on the subject, nor were other facts than the rendering of the accounts in this connection offered. The cases cited by the appellant do not therefore apply.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Cal. 632, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-salmon-cal-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack