Armstrong v. Lowe
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Meyer v. State Board of Equalization (Cal. 1954)
- Brandrup v. Britten (N.D. 1903)
- Slater v. Rauer (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
- Holway v. Malloy (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)
- Norton v. Overholtzer (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
- Landskroener v. Henning (Mich. 1923)
- Gold v. Phelan (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
- Grinde v. Chipman (Wis. 1921)
- Lewis v. Jones (S.D. 1920)
- Crumpacker v. Jeffrey (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- Thompson v. Scholl (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
- Jauman v. McCusick (Cal. 1913)
- Church v. Collins (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
- Lichty v. Daggett (S.D. 1909)
- Bacon v. Davis (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
- Stemler v. Bass (Cal. 1908)
- White v. Bank of Hanford (Cal. 1906)
- Larson v. O'Hara (Minn. 1906)
- York v. Nash (Or. 1903)
- Donnan v. Adams (Tex. App. 1902)
- Balkema v. Searle (Iowa 1902)
- Ballou v. Bergvendsen (N.D. 1900)
- Campbell v. Galloway (Ind. 1897)
- Springer v. City Bank & Trust Co. (Colo. 1915)
- Whitehouse v. Gerdis (Neb. 1914)
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 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.
Belcher, C. C., took no part in this opinion.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.