SAMUEL BLANKEN & CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SHANNON & LUCHS COMPANY, APPELLEE
SAMUEL BLANKEN & CO., INC., APPELLANT,
SHANNON & LUCHS COMPANY, APPELLEE
371 F.2d 950
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1966)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 20 cases
Opinion of the Court
TAMM, Circuit Judge:
This appeal involves the same subject matter as Samuel Blanken & Co. v. Sigmund Goldblatt et al. (No. 20,014, Dec. 1, 1966), 371 F. 2d 949, decided this day adversely to appellant. No attempt will be made here to discuss the facts delineated therein, except to state that appellee here is the agent of the lessor and that appellant, having failed to recover against appellee in a prior contract action, Blanken v. Goldblatt, et al., No. 19,536 (Nov. 23, 1965), is here seeking recovery of the reasonable value of his services by way of quantum meruit.
The District Court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss. We believe that appellant’s claims here are governed by the principles announced in today’s Gold-blatt decision. Moreover, it conclusively appears from the record in the two cases that appellant was definitely on notice that he could not look to the appellee for his commission, but rather must look to the lessees.
The decision of the District Court being clearly correct, it is therefore affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 407 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1969)
-
Bloomgarden v. Coyer, 479 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
-
Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 220 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Samuel Blanken & Co., Inc. v. Sigmund Goldblatt, 371 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1966)