In Connelly v. Richmond, 8 La.App. 411, we said: "Moreover, the mandatory language of Act 236 of 1920 is addressed to `the courts of this State' and they are admonished that unlicensed agents `shall not be allowed to recover' a fee or commission."
Summary of this case from Moore v. BurdineNovember, 1928.
Present — Lazansky, P.J., Rich, Young, Seeger and Scudder, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
In Connelly v. Richmond, 8 La.App. 411, we said: "Moreover, the mandatory language of Act 236 of 1920 is addressed to `the courts of this State' and they are admonished that unlicensed agents `shall not be allowed to recover' a fee or commission."
Summary of this case from Moore v. BurdineFull title:JAMES CONNELLY, Respondent, v. RICHMOND LIGHT AND RAILROAD COMPANY…
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Nov 1, 1928
We see no merit in this argument, for plaintiff is doing business in this state, when he has his office here…
Kaufman Agency v. ViccellioWhere a real estate broker is given the exclusive agency to sell for a specified period, the principal cannot…