From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waterman v. Boltinghouse

Supreme Court of California
Jan 31, 1890
82 Cal. 659 (Cal. 1890)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.

         COUNSEL:

         Meux & Edwards, for Appellant.

          E. C. Winchell, and Wharton & Short, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Thornton, J. McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          THORNTON, Judge

          [23 P. 196] This is an action by plaintiff to recover commissions for an alleged sale of land. He never produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy on the terms of his employer, the defendant. He cannot, therefore, recover. (Dolan v. Scanlan , 57 Cal. 261; Moses v. Bierling , 31 N.Y. 462; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co ., 83 N.Y. 378; 22 Am. Rep. 441.)

         Here the plaintiff had the exclusive right to sell for a term ending January 1, 1889, and the defendant, during this period, himself effected a sale. Though the plaintiff had the right to sell, to the exclusion of his employer, still he cannot recover his commissions unless he has produced a purchaser ready and willing to buy as above stated. This is expressly held, and correctly held, in Moses v. Bierling, supra, which is a case similar to this.

         The plaintiff argues this case as if it was a suit to recover damages for defendant's breach of contract. The complaint does not set forth any such action, but one to recover the compensation agreed to be paid on a sale.

         There is no error.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Waterman v. Boltinghouse

Supreme Court of California
Jan 31, 1890
82 Cal. 659 (Cal. 1890)
Case details for

Waterman v. Boltinghouse

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A. WATERMAN, Appellant, v. F. M. BOLTINGHOUSE, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 31, 1890

Citations

82 Cal. 659 (Cal. 1890)
23 P. 195

Citing Cases

Swartz v. Park

In other words, he can only be compensated for the loss sustained by reason of the breach. Jackson v.…

Wright & Kimbrough v. Dewees

While a change made by the owner, when consummating the sale, in the price of the land or the terms of the…