Case Name: JOHN McGEARY, Appellant, v. JOHN SATCHWELL, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1900-07-31
Citations: 129 Cal. 389
Docket Number: S. F. No. 1919
Parties: JOHN McGEARY, Appellant, v. JOHN SATCHWELL, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 1919.
Department One.
July 31, 1900.]
JOHN McGEARY, Appellant, v. JOHN SATCHWELL, Respondent.
Action fob Broker's Commission—Sale of Beal Estate—Written Contract Essential—Obal Evidence Inadmissible.—By the terms of subdivision 6 of section 1624 of the Civil Code, an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to sell real estate for a compensation or commission must be in writing. In an action to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff in effecting a sale of the defendant’s land, oral evidence to establish the contract is properly excluded.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. James M. Troutt, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Robert Ash, for Appellant.
Robert Ferrall, and W. H. Payson, for Original Respondent.
Alex McCulloch, for Executors of Deceased Respondent.

Opinion:
SMITH, C.
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant and an order denying a new trial. The action was brought to recover the sum of three hundred and forty dollars for services rendered by the plaintiff in effecting a sale of defendant's land. On the trial the court refused to hear evidence of the contract on the ground it was hot in writing.
The case comes directly under the provisions of section 1634, subdivision 6, of the Civil Code; and similar contracts have uniformly been held invalid by this court. (McCarthy v. Loupe, 62 Cal. 300; Myres v. Surryhne, 67 Cal. 657; Zeimer v. Antisell, 75 Cal. 509; McPhail v. Buell, 87 Cal. 115; Shanklin v. Hall, 100 Cal. 26.) The case of Clark v. Allen, 125 Cal. 276, cited by appellant, has no application. In that case the contract was in writing.
The judgment and order should be affirmed.
Haynes, C., and Gray, C., concurred.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.
Garoutte, J., Van Dyke, J., Harrison, J,