The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-01-11
REAL ESTATE
INTERESTS.
Important Suit for the Recovery
Of Commissions.
Blumenthal vs. GoodaH Will Come Up for Re.
hearing-A Case That Will Interest
Agents Lakeview Sales.

A case of no little interest to real estate
men has been that of Blumenthal VS..
Goodall. This action was commenced in the
Superior Court for the recovery of commits
sions amounting to $780, claimed to have
been earned by plaintiffs assignor, L.
Oesterreicher, the well-knOwn real estate
agent. in making the sale of certain lands
belonging to defendant. The Superior
Court found that Edwin Goodall, who was
the owner of the land In question, gave Mr..
Oesterreicher a written authorization for its
sale. of which the following is a copy:
+ hereby authorize Mr.. L. Oesterreicher to sell
Hooks 500, 800, 9O1, 903, Outside Lands, for
the sum OF fifteen hundred dollars $780, each !;
VIII allow him one hundred dollars (S1o0 as
commissions for his services on each block.
ms contract 10 be in force ten days from GATE
hereof
This paper was duly signed by defendant,
and dated July Is, 1887. On the same day
Mr.. Oesterreicher made an oral agreement
with Mr.. Fuda, who was 10 purchase the
blocks at the price named in the owner
authorization, but Mr.. Fulda failing to put
it in writing, Mr.. Oesterroicher, at subse-
sequent hour on the same day, negotiated
with and executed written agreement with
o. f. Won. Rhein to sell him Won Rhein) the
property at the same price, subject to per-
feet record title, thirty days being allowed
for its examination, and deposit of $500
was made upon the agreement.
On the same day both Mr. Oesterricher and
Mr.. Won Rhein notified the defendant in
writing of what had been done, and Won
Rhein at o'clock on the morning of the
18th applied to the defendant for the alb
stract of title, informing defendant that the
search would be completed within thirty
days Mr.. Goodall stated that he would not
allow thirty days for the examination of
title, to which Won Khein replied that he
would make the search in a shorter time if
possible. Upon this statement the defend
ant gave the abstract to Won Rhein for the
purpose of examination. On the following
day Mr.. Fulda notified defendant that he
had purchased the property from Mr..
Oesterreicher, and offered TO deposit $500
and to buy the property at the specified
price if the title proved 10 be faultleSS.
Aiterward, on the 10Th, defendant served
notice upon both OesIerreicher and Won
Rhein, reciting that the former had pro-
cured the authorization by miSrepresenta-
ton as to the probable purchaser; that by
his having negotiated for sale to two dif-
ferent men he had complicated matters,
and that he therefore revoked the authority
to Mr.. OeSterrecher, and declined to pro-
coed further with the sale through his
agency.
On The 10Th Won Rhein completed his ex-
animation of the title, gave notice to defend
ant that it was satisfactory, rendered the
purchase price and demanded conveyance
of the property, but defendant declined TO
receive the money and refused to give
deed. A demand made for the commission
was also refused and Mr.. Oesterricher as
signed his claim 20 the plaintiff. The court
found that the authorization had not been
procured through any Misrepresentation or
grant, but decided that plaintiff was not en-
titled to relief and entered judgment for de-
PENDANT A molten for new trial was de-
MED, and an appeal made from both judg-
ment and order.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision
OF the lower judiciary, finding that GoOdall
had the right to revoke the authority given
to Oesterreicher at any time before complete
performance on his part, and that up to the
time OF the revocation there had been no
performance on the part CT Oester Richer.
The court held that to be entitled to
his commission the necessary performance
would have been the production of a pur-
chaser ready and willing TO buy the prop
erty on the terms embraced in the authori-
cation, and neither of the alleged purchasers
had up to the time of revocation signifed
their Willingness to buy the property uncOn-
posed. Three Justices concurreu Win Jus
tice Fox in this decision, two dissenting.
Judgment was rendered on December 6,
1890, and on January 2, 1891, 81. C. Fire
baugh, attorney for plaintiff, filed petition
Tor rehearing on the grounds that the
agent was duly authorized by defendant,
and performed his duties in so far as his
principal would allow him; while not dis
cussing the principals right to revoke, that
by his act OF revocation and his refusal to
proceed further with the sale, the principal
should not be permitted to avoid payment
for the services already rendered, and that
the agent was entitled TO his full compenSa-
ton. This petition was granted, and an
order made for rehearing on January Dist
In the Supreme Court.
LAKEVIEw.
Last August the Carnall-Fitzhugh- Hop
kins Company placed on the market this
choice piece of land on the Ocean boulevard
by order of Adolph Sutro, which for some
time past has been extensively advertised.
Over the tract were then scattered several
thrifty tilers of the SOIL which gave the
locality decidedly rural appearance. The
land was in high state of cultivation and
no doubt returned a fair profit on the labor
of the husbandman. 1t has always been
spoken of as beautiful spot, and 1t is not
surprising that the far-seelng owner had
decided tG cut it up into blocks for the mar
ket.
Since the first time it was submitted to
the public. there has been constant de-
manG. first for blocks and more recently for
lots. Already the inducements made give
the subdivision an attractive appearance.
Among the more important ones may be
mentioned seven miles of street work, four
teen miles of fencing, the planting of sew
eral thousand choice trees along the lines Of
the streets and avenues, with city water
traverSiBg the entire tract. Houses are be-
ing built by Samuel tombstone, Captain J.
ID. Karts, DIR. Payne, Mrs. Francis, II. Hyde
and j. II. Schneider.
The projected improvements in this direc-
ton. including the grading, etc, of 200 acres
of the San Miguel Ranch, Is bound to give
an impetus to realty matters in and around
Lakeyiew.
G. Ii. Umbsen 6 Co. report business rap
idly improving with prospects for an active
market during the coming spring. The firm
has already made nearly score of sales dur
ing the present year. among which are the
following: Northwest corner of Cook and
st. Roses streets, lot 125x120, for $3.50; lot
50:11X114 on the north line Of Duncan street,
l52 - feet west of Douglass, for $780, 1910
Vallejo street, lot 26x60, for $500; lot q in
Block 9. Park Lane Tract, Map 3, for $675 :;
SO and 5S Zoe street. lot 25X75, for 1926; S44
Fifteenth street, lot 25X105, for $780, 2212
and 2214 Pine street, for 1880, lot 27xS7 IS
Block 800, near the ocean beach, was sold
yesterday to NJ. o. Curry for about $1,000
Following Is the property which was re-
ported sold at auction last week: The Tivoli
Theater property, $50 on Ellis by 175 deep
renting for $685. found buyer at S121, 600
in George w. McNear. A residence of IS
rooms on the south side of California, east
of Leavenworth, lot IS :9X137 IS, sold to w.
w. Lodge for $50, O0O, cash deposit being
made Immediately. The vacant lot on the
northwest corner of Larkin and Post streets.
35X95, was purchased by Joseph Hume for
$4,000. and the building lot I'll :2x137 Is, on
the east side OF Franklin, north of Clay, was
sold to John l. Sabin for $4,000. A
downtown property on the northwest
corner of Sacramento street and Prospect
place, with good house, lot 81 :6x55. subject
to confirmation, for $3.50; and the four
stores and four ffaSs ON the southeast corner
of Sixteenth and Guerrero, lot S0x130 were
disposed of to James Palmer for S27, $50.
The last piece sold was fifty-vara on the
southeast cerner of Sacramento and Laurel
to c. d. Salfeld for $4,000
RIrII.nERS, CONrR ACTS.