Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

129 Cal. 389

McGeary v. Satchwell

California Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1900

California Supreme Court · decided 1900-07-31

<p>APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. James M. Troutt, Judge.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Relies on Zeimer v. Antisell · McCarthy v. Loupe · Shanklin v. Hall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-07-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1929

9 state decisions

50190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SMITH, C.

¶1Appeal from a judgment for the defendant and an order denying a new trial. The action was brought to recover the sum of three hundred and forty dollars for services rendered by the plaintiff in effecting a sale of defendant’s land. On the trial the court refused to hear evidence of the contract on the ground it was hot in writing.

¶2The case comes directly under the provisions of section 1634, subdivision 6, of the Civil Code; and similar contracts have uniformly been held invalid by this court. (McCarthy v. Loupe, 62 Cal. 300; Myres v. Surryhne, 67 Cal. 657; Zeimer v. Antisell, 75 Cal. 509; McPhail v. Buell, 87 Cal. 115; Shanklin v. Hall, 100 Cal. 26.) The case of Clark v. Allen, 125 Cal. 276, cited by appellant, has no application. In that case the contract was in writing.

¶3The judgment and order should be affirmed.

¶4Haynes, C., and Gray, C., concurred.

¶5For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

¶6Garoutte, J., Van Dyke, J., Harrison, J,

/129/cal/389 · .json · Public domain