168 P. 1150 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1917
By this action plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $312.50 as a commission alleged to have become due from defendant upon a broker's written contract for the sale of land.
The only point involved in the case is whether or not the authorization of sale describes the property sufficiently to satisfy the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, sec.
The trial court found in favor of the defendant, and this appeal is from the judgment thereupon entered.
The portion of the contract pertinent to the question involved is as follows: "For and in consideration of the services to be performed by A. H. Anderson I hereby employ him as my sole and exclusive agent to sell for me that certain *772 real property situate in the County of Marin, State of California, and described as follows, to wit: 68 1/2 acres on Olive Avenue or Black Point road, barn, chicken-house — 26x40, Brooder house 14x30, windmill, well and spring, house of five rooms, running water, 14 acres marsh-land."
We are of the opinion that this description contains all of the particulars necessary to identify the premises to be sold and substantially meets the requirements of the statute. The office of a description is not solely to identify the land but also to furnish a means of identification. Accordingly it has been held that a contract to employ a broker to sell real estate will not be declared void merely because of a defect, uncertainty, or ambiguity in the description of the property, but that such defect may be cured though not created by such evidence. (Proulx v. Sacramento Valley Land Co.,
For the reasons given the judgment is reversed and the trial court directed to render judgment in favor of appellant in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
Lennon, P. J., and Richards, J., concurred. *773