Thompson v. English
Citations
- 76 Wash. 23
- 135 P. 664
- 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1780
Syllabus
<p>Frauds, Statute of — Pleading—Necessity. Where the complaint in an action for a broker’s commission does not set out the contract or disclose that it was within the statute of frauds, the defendant may raise the point at the trial without having demurred, or pleaded in his answer that the contract is within the statute and void.</p> <p>Frauds, Statute of — Broker’s Commissions — Sufficiency of Writing. A contract for a broker’s commission for the sale of “seventy-nine acres” in a specified section, cannot be applied to any definite property without resort to parol testimony and is therefore not sufficient, under the statute of frauds requiring the contract to be in writing.</p>
Judges: Main
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Rogers v. LippyWashington Supreme Court· 1918-01-09· cited 25×
- White v. Panama Lumber & Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1924-03-31· cited 15×
- Gilman v. BruntonWashington Supreme Court· 1916-12-26· cited 13×
- Schmidt v. PowellWashington Supreme Court· 1919-05-13· cited 9×
- Baylor v. TolliverWashington Supreme Court· 1914-08-14· cited 7×
- House v. ErwinWashington Supreme Court· 1972-10-19· cited 6×
- Arbogast v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court· 1914-07-22· cited 4×
- Gaunt v. Vance Lumber Co.Ninth Circuit· 1929-03-18
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.