McPhail v. Buell
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Leventritt v. Cowell (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
- Riley v. Palmer (Tex. App. 1923)
- First American Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Cook (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)
- Kraemer v. Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)
- Augustine v. Trucco (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
- Goen v. Hamilton (Tex. App. 1942)
- Mitchell v. Green (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
- House v. Cook (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)
- Lind v. Huene (Cal. 1928)
- Gould v. Otto (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
- Dunne v. Colomb (Cal. 1923)
- Thompson v. Ryan (Iowa 1920)
- Case v. Ralph (Utah 1920)
- Columbia Realty Investment Co. v. Alameda Land Co. (Or. 1917)
- Sellers v. Solway Land Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
- Campbell v. Cove Ranch Land & Livestock Co. (Idaho 1916)
- Proulx v. Sacramento Valley Land Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
- Madsen v. Utah Light & Railway Co. (Utah 1909)
- People Ex Rel. Hardacre v. Davidson (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
- Bullion & Exchange Bank v. Spooner (Cal. 1894)
- Bush v. Abraham (Or. 1894)
- Amies v. Wesnofske (N.Y. 1931)
- Crowell v. . Parker (N.C. 1916)
- Meckes v. Mullen (City of New York Municipal Court 1912)
- McGeary v. Satchwell (Cal. 1900)
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 appellant brought this action to recover for commissions alleged to have been due him for making sale of certain real estate for the respondent.
The complaint is in different counts, one upon a special contract agreeing to pay the commissions, and the others relying upon a verbal contract and upon the quantum meruit. There could be no recovery on either of the last two counts, because the code of this state requires that, to entitle a .broker to recover commissions in this class of cases, his contract therefor must be in
It is equally clear, to our minds, that the appellant was not entitled to recover on the written contract. The agreement was, that the defendant would pay the plaintiff when the vendees paid to him (the defendant) th.e sum of twenty thousand dollars on account of the price of said sale, and execute to him their notes and mortgage for the balance of the purchase-money. The purchasers executed their notes and mortgage, but failed to pay the sum of twenty thousand dollars, either at the time of making the deed, or upon the notes given after-wards. Although the defendant extended the time of payment, and used all reasonable means to procure the money, he was finally compelled to take back the property. Their failure to pay the money was a complete bar to any claim of the appellant to commissions.
The appellant contends that certain errors were committed by the court below in its rulings upon the admission of evidence and in its instructions; but conceding this to be so, the case could not be reversed on account of such rulings, as, for the reasons given, the appellant could not recover in any event.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Fox, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.