Case Name: FRANKEL v. CROSS et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-10-29
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 733
Docket Number: No. 8901
Parties: FRANKEL v. CROSS et.
Judges: (Hughes, P. J., and Justice, J. of the 3rd Dist., sitting.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 733–733

Head Matter:
FRANKEL v. CROSS et.
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 8901.
Decided Oct. 29, 1928.
(Hughes, P. J., and Justice, J. of the 3rd Dist., sitting.)
Christian J. Bannick, Cleveland, for Frankel.
Lieghley, Halle, Haber & Berick, Cleveland, for Cross, et.

Opinion:
HUGHES, PJ.
It would make little difference in what variety of language this cause of action might be described or set forth. In its substance it would always be a claim asserted on a parol contract for the collection of a real estate broker's commission earned for services in procuring a purchaser. This is exactly what the statute of frauds now says is unenforceable. Without doubt the demurrer was rightly sustained and the judgment is affirmed at the costs of plaintiff in error.
(Justice and Mauck, JJ., concur.)