Carpenter v. Hammer

• Decision Date: 13 May 1905
• Citation: 87 S.W. 646,75 Ark. 347
• Parties: CARPENTER v. HAMMER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

87 S.W. 646

75 Ark. 347

CARPENTER v. HAMMER

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 13, 1905

Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court GEORGE M. CHAPLINE, Judge.

Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

H. A. & J. R. Parker, for appellants.

Agents cannot act for parties whose interest in the least interferes with that of their principal. Evans, Ag. 212; 39 Mich. 511 59 N.W. 27; 93 Am. Dec. 718. If the agent acts adversely to his agreement, it amounts to a fraud on the principal. 59 N.Y. 97; 102 N.Y. 505; 11 R. I. 311; 66 Pa.St. 332; 34 Ark 332. Plaintiff was not entitled to recover the $ 16, amount of expense bill. 4 Ark. 179; 6 Ark. 51; 5 Ark. 672; 24 Ark 210; 35 Ark. 156; 21 Ark. 69, 309; 26 Ark. 296; 33 Ark. 150.

John L. Ingram and George C. Lewis, for appellee.

OPINION

HILL, C. J.

Hammer lived in Illinois, and had some property in Arkansas County in this State, and came with some land seekers on one occasion, and desired to do so again. Carpenter & Farmer were a firm of real estate agents, operating in Arkansas and adjoining counties. A contract was entered into between Hammer and said firm by which it was agreed that Hammer should have a commission of 10 per cent. on all sales of real estate in Arkansas County or the Southern District of Prairie County, which might be made by Carpenter & Farmer, in which Hammer brought them the purchaser, or was instrumental in bringing them the purchaser. Hammer stipulated to work exclusively for Carpenter & Farmer in bringing emigrants to Arkansas County. Hammer came with a friend from Illinois and his friend's brother; the latter was homeseeking, having sold out in South Dakota. These men, named Kilbury, were introduced to Carpenter & Farmer, and the real estate men took them in charge, and drove them to various places in the county they desired to visit, and showed them the country, and incidentally priced farms to them. The Kilburys were vigorously protesting that they did not desire to buy land, but these protestations, probably because they protested overmuch, did not cause the real estate agents to desist from their courtesies. Kilbury on returning to Dakota decided to move to Arkansas, and wrote to Carpenter & Farmer to rent him a farm. They did so, but could not hold it long enough, and Kilbury reached Arkansas County with his farm stock, horses, cattle and hogs, and had no farm to go to, and was anxious to rent or buy. Carpenter & Farmer effected a purchase of a farm, for him from Col. Halliburton for $ 4,000, and the agents received from Col. Halliburton $ 200 commission. Hammer brought this suit on the contract for $ 400 commission. The appellants denied that he brought the purchaser to them, and charged bad faith on Hammer's part, and put in a counterclaim for $ 16 and another item, which was abandoned.

Hammer recovered judgment for $ 400.

The appellant has fairly abstracted the testimony, and it appears therefrom that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury to sustain Hammer's case, and a verdict on it will not be disturbed as without evidence...