Wilson v. Morton

California Supreme Court

Wilson v. Morton

24 P. 784, 85 Cal. 598, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 955

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 10, 1890

DocketNo. 13447

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 24 P. 784 (Wilson v. Morton) 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

Wilson v. Morton, 24 P. 784, 85 Cal. 598, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 955 (Cal. 1890).

Pincite

Opinions

The Court.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants agreed to pay them fifty cents an acre for all lands in the county of Kern which they should examine and advise defendants to purchase, and which should be afterwards purchased by defendants; .that in pursuance of the agreement they examined 14,020 acres of land, and advised defendants to purchase the same; that all of said lands were purchased and" were afterwards sold by defendants, whereby defendants became indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $7,010. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $3,520. Judgment was entered for that amount. A motion for new trial was denied, and defendants appealed. The contract was not one required by the statute of frauds to be in writing. Section 1624 of the Civil Code does not apply. Plaintiffs [599]*599are not claiming commissions as defendants’ agents or brokers, for the sale or purchase of real estate. The compensation claimed by them is for services rendered in pointing out property purchased by the latter, and for advice given them. We think the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. While it is not clear to us how the jury, under the evidence, took eleven sections as the basis of the verdict, we should not disturb the verdict on the ground that there is no evidence to support it.

We see no error in the ruling of the court excluding the evidence offered by defendants to show that they had employed and paid other parties to assist them in selecting a portion of the lands described in the complaint. If the evidence was not wholly incompetent, it was so uncertain and immaterial that it could not have aided the jury in determining the issues between the parties.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

The Court.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants agreed to pay them fifty cents an acre for all lands in the county of Kern which they should examine and advise defendants to purchase, and which should be afterwards purchased by defendants; .that in pursuance of the agreement they examined 14,020 acres of land, and advised defendants to purchase the same; that all of said lands were purchased and" were afterwards sold by defendants, whereby defendants became indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $7,010. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $3,520. Judgment was entered for that amount. A motion for new trial was denied, and defendants appealed. The contract was not one required by the statute of frauds to be in writing. Section 1624 of the Civil Code does not apply. Plaintiffs [599]*599are not claiming commissions as defendants’ agents or brokers, for the sale or purchase of real estate. The compensation claimed by them is for services rendered in pointing out property purchased by the latter, and for advice given them. We think the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. While it is not clear to us how the jury, under the evidence, took eleven sections as the basis of the verdict, we should not disturb the verdict on the ground that there is no evidence to support it.

We see no error in the ruling of the court excluding the evidence offered by defendants to show that they had employed and paid other parties to assist them in selecting a portion of the lands described in the complaint. If the evidence was not wholly incompetent, it was so uncertain and immaterial that it could not have aided the jury in determining the issues between the parties.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 P. 784, 85 Cal. 598, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-morton-cal-1890.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack