Leszynsky v. Meyer

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 53
• 53 P. 703
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 1080

Syllabus

<p>Brokers—Compensation for Sale of Realty—Insufficient Evidence.—On January 17, 1891, plaintiff, at London, transmitted to decedent an offer from a corporation there to purchase certain land owned by him which he accepted on conditions, one of which was that £10,000 be advanced as security for performance. On April 25th plaintiff wrote, asking that the conditions be waived. No direct response was made, and decedent, on June 2d, wrote that, unless he received notice by July 1st that the matter was closed, he would withdraw about one-half of the land from the pending proposals. No such notice was sent, but plaintiff wrote that the letter was not clear, and that he expected to hear from decedent that the proposition was satisfactory. On December 5th plaintiff wrote that the corporation would be glad to do business, and requested decedent to send someone to .London to complete the negotiations as outlined in their former propositions, which letter was delivered by R. On January 15, 1892, decedent replied that he was sorry his last letter was not sufficiently clear, and that he was willing to sell on the terms proposed in their letter of January 17, 1891, or would divide the property into two portions, and, if the matter was definitely settled, his son in law could go to London, provided £1,000 was paid for his expenses. On March 16th plaintiff wrote that the corporation was in liquidation, and he would try to sell the land to others. B. testified that when he delivered the letter of December 5, 1891, decedent said he knew satisfactory terms had been made between himself and the corporation about June or July, 1891, and that plaintiff had effected a sale with these parties, and that he should have gone across, and closed up the matter on the other side. Held, in an action to recover for services rendered in procuring the purchaser for the land, that there never was such a meeting of the minds of the negotiating parties as would authorize reeovery.1</p>