The controversy in this case centers on a claim for commissions on the sale of real estate by the appellants to the appellees, for which the appellants were held liable on the strength of a verbal promise to pay. They now contend that the court erred in admitting testimony to vary the terms of the written contract. The short answer is that the evidence came in without objection or without any ruling by the court...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.