Gilbert v. Judson
Before: Gibson
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Gibson, C. This was an action brought by A. C. Gilbert, to recover of A. H. Judson the value of certain ser[106]vices rendered to Judson, under a written contract, in assisting and advising him in relation to the surveying and laying out of a portion of a tract of land in Los Angeles County, known as Highland Park tract, for the purpose of placing the same upon the market for sale; also, damages for the breach of said contract, caused by Judson refusing to permit him to proceed with the erection of two houses on a portion of the tract, upon the cost of which lie was to receive a certain percentage, in consideration of furnishing plans and specifications, and purchasing material therefor, and in superintending the construction thereof. The court found that the plaintiff did, under the contract, superintend the survey and subdivision of a portion of the defendant’s tract of land, and that such services were reasonably worth one hundred dollars; but found against him and in favor of the defendant as to the other matter. Judgment for the amount so found to be due him passed for plaintiff, from which defendant brings this appeal.
The only question presented here is, whether the plaintiff, under the terms of the contract, is entitled to compensation for the services found by the court to have been rendered, and depends upon a construction of the contract. The portion of it material to this question is as follows:-—•
“ I hereby appoint A. C. Gilbert sole agent for the sale of such property as I may desire to sell in the Highland Park tract, at a commission of ten per cent on all sales that may be effected by him, which shall be in full for any services he may render me in assisting and advising in the surveying and laying out of the lands ready for market.....I hereby authorize him to at once proceed and have the lots known as my home tract to be surveyed and mapped ready for beginning operations..... Prices and items to be hereafter agreed upon.”
From the language of this contract, we think it clear that the commission plaintiff was to receive for selling [107]the lots was intended to compensate him, and be his only compensation, for services rendered in surveying and laying them out ready for the market.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)