Cornelius v. Holland

California Court of Appeal Nov 21, 1929 No. Docket No. 5744.Published

Before: Burnell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a partnership existed between the defendants regarding the property, and that the appellant ratified the broker's employment and the obligation to pay a commission by signing escrow instructions. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the agency relationship between the broker and his own employee.

Issues

Whether a partnership existed between the defendants regarding the property and the obligation to pay a commission.
Whether the appellant ratified the broker's employment and the obligation to pay a commission.
Whether the appellant could challenge the agency relationship between the plaintiff broker and his employee.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is clear that a partnership existed between appellant Edwards and his co-defendant Holland with regard to the lot”

BURNELL, J.,

pro

tem.

Prior to the transaction which gave rise to this litigation the defendants Granville Holland and Norton H. Edwards, together with their respective wives, acquired title to a lot in the city of Beverly Hills, an undivided one-half interest therein being conveyed to each couple as joint tenants. Each of the defendants paid one-half of the purchase price of the lot, their agreement being that they would improve the same, each bearing one-half of the cost of such improvement, and would endeavor to sell the property so improved at a profit, and that all profits or losses arising from the improvement and sale should be equally divided between them. Prior to April 24, 1925,

[138]

Holland, with the knowledge and consent of Edwards- verbally expressed, employed the plaintiff as a broker to sell the property. Evidencing such employment Holland signed a listing card describing the property, specifying the price asked as $35,000, stating the terms of sale and agreeing to pay a commission of five per cent of the sales price to the broker. The broker’s name was not filled in, but the listing card was delivered so signed to one E'ger, who was an employee of and a licensed salesman under the plaintiff, to whom he in turn delivered it. Thereafter the plaintiff, acting through his employee Eger, procured one Illitch—whom the court found was “ready, willing and able to buy said property”—to pay a deposit of $2,000 on account of the purchase price thereof and to. sign an agreement to complete the purchase on the terms and for the price demanded by the sellers. To the deposit receipt containing this agreement .was appended the following:

“I agree to sell the above described property on the terms and conditions herein stated and agree to pay the above signed agent as commission the sum of Seventeen Hundred and Fifty and no/100 Dollars $1750.00 Dollars, or one-half the deposit in case same is forfeited by purchaser, provided the same shall not exceed the full amount of the commission.

“Granville Holland,

" Seller.

“Paul L. Eger, “Witness.”

Cornelius v. Holland

AI Brief

BURNELL, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief