From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calhoun v. Eysenbach

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jun 25, 1912
34 Okla. 185 (Okla. 1912)

Opinion

No. 1887

Opinion Filed June 25, 1912.

BROKERS — Compensation — Legality of Contract. A municipal ordinance providing that real estate brokers shall pay a license tax, and that it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in business without first obtaining the license, and that persons so engaged without the license shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, but which does not undertake to make the contract of a real estate broker void for failure to comply with the ordinance, does not prevent such broker from recovering a commission for services rendered without the license.

(Syllabus by Ames, C.)

Error from Tulsa County Court; N.J. Gubser, Judge.

Action by Oscar K. Eysenbach against H. C. Calhoun to recover a commission for the sale of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Randolph Haver, for plaintiff in error.

Davidson Malloy, for defendant in error.


The only question involved in this case is whether an ordinance of the city of Tulsa requiring real estate brokers to pay a license tax, and providing that it shall be a misdemeanor to engage in the business without the payment of the tax, prevents a broker, who has not paid the license from recovering on a contract under which he has earned his commission. The issue is determined against the defendant by the case of Hughes v. Snell, 28 Okla. 828, 115 P. 1105, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1133, and it is unnecessary to examine the numerous authorities cited in the able brief of the plaintiff in error, as that case determines the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

We think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Calhoun v. Eysenbach

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jun 25, 1912
34 Okla. 185 (Okla. 1912)
Case details for

Calhoun v. Eysenbach

Case Details

Full title:CALHOUN v. EYSENBACH

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Jun 25, 1912

Citations

34 Okla. 185 (Okla. 1912)
124 P. 978

Citing Cases

Storm Butts v. Lipscomb

Appellant contends that the subcontract of March 18, 1927, being in writing, contains the full agreement…

Campbell v. Thomas

That the payment by a real estate broker of a license fee provided for under such an ordinance as the one in…