Friedman v. Suttle

Citations

• 10 Ariz. 57
• 85 P. 726
• 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 96

Syllabus

<p>1. Brokers — Compensation—Statute of Frauds — Czarnowski v. Holland, 5 Ariz. 119, 78 Pac. 890, Overruled. — It is not necessary for an agreement to compensate an agent or broker for services rendered in the buying or selling of real estate to be in writing.</p> <p>2. Stare Decisis — Not Applicable to Dicta. — The doctrine of stare deoÁsis has only to do with opinions upon points necessary and proper to the decision of the case, and not with dicta.</p> <p>3. Contracts — Consideration—Past—What Is not. — Plaintiff was engaged in writing descriptions of mining properties for newspaper purposes and defendant instructed him to look for good prospects, saying he would examine any property that plaintiff brought to his notice, and if satisfactory purchase it. Plaintiff brought certain property to defendant’s notice, gave Mm written reports and samples of ore, and told Mm the name of the owner and its location. Defendant promised to investigate it and pay plaintiff a certain commission if he purchased. Such promise was not founded on a past consideration and was enforceable.</p>