From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caldwell v. Hahn

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
May 6, 1929
98 Cal.App. 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)

Opinion

Docket No. 5184.

May 6, 1929.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles S. Burnell, Judge. Affirmed.

Dennis Griffith for Appellants.

Clarence L. Kincaid for Respondents.


[1] This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment awarding plaintiffs the recovery of one thousand dollars paid by them as commissions to the appellants for representing respondents as purchasers of that property designated as lot 8 in the opinion filed this day in the case of Robson v. Hahn, ante, p. 671 [ 277 P. 507]. The facts and the law are set forth in that opinion and we deem further discussion unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P.J., and Craig, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on June 4, 1929, and a petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on July 3, 1929.

All the Justices present concurred.


Summaries of

Caldwell v. Hahn

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
May 6, 1929
98 Cal.App. 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
Case details for

Caldwell v. Hahn

Case Details

Full title:FRANK CALDWELL et al., Respondents, v. CLIFF HAHN et al., Appellants

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: May 6, 1929

Citations

98 Cal.App. 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
277 P. 509

Citing Cases

Tackett v. Croonquist

(See cases collected in 134 A.L.R. 1346.) Such bad faith will defeat the broker's right to recover a…