Armstrong v. Lowe

California Supreme Court
Armstrong v. Lowe, 76 Cal. 616 (Cal. 1888)
18 P. 758; 1888 Cal. LEXIS 948
Hayne

Armstrong v. Lowe

Opinion of the Court

Hayne, C.

The sole question in this case is, whether the real estate brokers whom the defendant employed “to sell”' certain real property had authority to execute a contract to convey. We think that upon the authority of Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 244, 245, 6 Am. Rep. 617, it must be held that they had not, and that the case of Rutenberg v. Main, 47 Cal. 219, is not in point.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

*618Foote, C., concurred.

Belcher, C. C., took no part in this opinion.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
W. M. ARMSTRONG v. D. LOWE
Cited By
33 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Authority of Beat, Estate Brokers Employed “to Sell” Land.— Where real estate brokers are employed “to sell ” land, they have not, from this alone, authority to execute a contract to convey.