Court Opinion

ID: 9864676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:50:24.346548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:20.928057
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
The petition for a rehearing is denied.
In denying the petition for a rehearing we deem it proper to again call attention to the fact that the only employment of the broker evidenced by the writing relied on was to procure an acceptance of the specific offer made by defendant, which the broker never sueeeded in doing, either within the ten days allowed for such acceptance or at all. The broker was not employed generally to effect a sale or exchange of defendant’s property, but only to procure an acceptance by Mrs *549Thompson of the offer to exchange and sell contained in the writing signed by defendant. In this particular the case is quite like the case of Holland v. Flash, post, p. 686, [130 Pac. 32], decided December 19, 1912 (which is since the opinion in this case was filed), by the court of appeal of the second district, where it was in effect held, that under such a contract the broker could only recover on showing a compliance with the particular employment evidenced by the writing.