California Supreme Court, 1882

Condee v. Barton

California Supreme Court · Decided November 6, 1882

62 Cal. 1; 1882 Cal. LEXIS 684

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Blakely Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Reynolds Bros. Lumber Co. (Ga. 1931)
First National Bank v. Dusy (Cal. 1895)
Crim v. Kessing (Cal. 1891)
Tully v. Davis (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2020)
Gury v. Gury (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
Hume v. Lindholm (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Tulare Irrigation District v. Superior Court (Cal. 1925)
Ex Parte Monckros Von Vetsera (Cal. Ct. App. 1907)
State ex rel. Brown v. Brown (Wash. 1903)
Herrlich v. McDonald (Cal. 1894)
Broder v. Conklin (Cal. 1893)
County of Los Angeles v. Lankershim (Cal. 1893)
O'Brien v. O'Brien (Cal. 1889)
In re the Estate of Cook (Cal. 1888)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The Court:

We know of no principle that would estop the plaintiffs from claiming their commission, because the “ memorandum of agreement” describes the defendant as owner of the property to be sold.

We can see no objection to the practice of changing the conclusions of law, based upon the finding of facts at any time before judgment is entered. The declaration of the general conclusion of law from the facts found, is the rendition of the judgment in so far, as that, when entered, the *6judgment entered may relate to such rendition for certain purposes. But this does not make the conclusions of law first announced final and beyond the reach of the Court. There is no judgment which is final until a judgment is recorded.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.