Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. Unrep. 398

Quiggle v. Prouty

California Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1896

California Supreme Court · decided 1896-07-16

<p>APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; John Hunt, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Charles Quiggle against Simon Prouty. Judg-</p> <p>ment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.</p>

Affirmed · Decided 1896-07-16

TEMPLE, J.

¶1The only question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiff is entitled to recover commissions for the sale of a lot at Sacramento. Defendant placed with plaintiff, as broker, a certain lot for sale, to remain in his hands for one year, with the condition that “if a sale of said property shall be negotiated during that time by the said Chas. Quiggle, directly or indirectly, for the amount stipulated, or any less amount which I may accept, .... I promise to pay the said Chas. Quiggle a commission of five per cent on the amount of said sale.” A broker’s contract, like .any other, is governed by its terms. There is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that plaintiff negotiated a sale of the property placed in his hands. The judgment is affirmed.

¶2.We concur: McFarland, J.; Henshaw, J.

/5/calunrep/398 · .json · Public domain