Skip to main content
· 5/30/1882

Neilson v. Lee

Citations

  • 60 Cal. 555
  • 1882 Cal. LEXIS 505

Syllabus

<p>Real Estate Broker—Agent— Sale—Commissions—Construction or Contract.'—By an agreement in writing, the plaintiff was authorized by the defendant, at any time within sixty days, to sell his mine for a sum not less than sixty-five thousand dollars; and within the time specified, made a written agreement with H., a responsible purchaser, in the name of his principal, for the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars—H. to have twenty days to examine the title, and if the same was not good. and to the satisfaction of H., the agreement to be void. At the same time the plaintiff made a separate written agreement with H. that if the defendant did not sign the agreement on or before twelve o’clock M., August 26, 1878, H. should be released from the contract. The defendant refused to sign the agreement within the time specified, and H., on that ground, notified the plaintiff that he withdrew from the contract. The Court found that the plaintiff did not procure a purchaser.</p> <p>Held: By refusing to ratify the agreement the defendant refused to sell the property to H. at the price, and on the terms which he had agreed with the plaintiff to sell it; and this being so, the finding that the plaintiff did not procure a purchaser able and willing to purchase the property is against the evidence.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • courts must construe statutory language so as not to render it meaningless or mere surplusage
  • courts must construe statutory language so as not to render it meaningless or mere surplusage
  • courts must construe statutory language so as not to render it meaningless or mere surplusage
  • courts must construe statutory language so as not to render it meaningless or mere surplusage
  • “[When] possible, we construe language used by the General Assembly in a manner that will not render it meaningless or mere surplusage.”
  • courts must construe statutory language so as not to render it meaningless or mere surplusage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McKee, Sharpstein

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.