9 Cal.App. 372, Civ. 538, Aldis v. Schleicher

Docket Nº:Civ. 538
Citation:9 Cal.App. 372, 99 P. 526
Opinion Judge:SHAW, Judge
Party Name:F. F. ALDIS, Respondent, v. ADOLF SCHLEICHER, Appellant
Attorney:Woodruff & McClure, for Appellant. S. M. Haskins, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: SHAW, J. Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred. Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred.
Case Date:November 19, 1908
Court:California Court of Appeals

Page 372

9 Cal.App. 372

99 P. 526

F. F. ALDIS, Respondent,



Civ. No. 538

Court of Appeals of California, Second District

November 19, 1908

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. B. N. Smith, Judge.

The judgment and order appealed from are reversed.


Woodruff & McClure, for Appellant.

S. M. Haskins, for Respondent.

JUDGES: SHAW, J. Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred.


SHAW, Judge

At the time of the transaction both plaintiff and defendant were real estate brokers. The former seeks to recover from defendant a broker's commission upon an oral agreement for services rendered in effecting a sale of certain real estate, which agreement, it is alleged, was made with defendant as the agent and broker of Frances D. Kraemer and Frank White, each of whom, with defendant,

Page 373

owned an undivided one-third interest in the property sold. It is alleged in the complaint " that in offering said property for sale the defendant was acting as the agent of said Frances D. Kraemer and of said Frank White as to the interest held by each of them in said property as aforesaid; that as such agent for said Frances D. Kraemer and said Frank White defendant entered into an oral agreement with plaintiff, wherein and whereby the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a reasonable commission if plaintiff would effect a sale of the property hereinbefore described." It is further alleged that plaintiff effected a sale thereof, by reason whereof and by reason of said agreement there became due to him from the defendant a reasonable commission upon the price for which the property was sold.

Defendant interposed a general demurrer, and also demurred to the complaint specially, alleging as grounds therefor that the cause of action was barred by subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code, and that the complaint was uncertain, in that it could not be ascertained whether the agreement was for the division of commissions between plaintiff and defendant, or whether the plaintiff was to receive the entire commission for the sale of the property. This demurrer was by the court overruled. Upon trial judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for a reasonable commission upon that portion of the sale price of the property other than that...

To continue reading