Clay v. Cummins
Decision Date | 15 November 1917 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 637 |
Citation | 77 So. 328,201 Ala. 34 |
Parties | CLAY v. CUMMINS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 24, 1917
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County; B.M. Miller, Judge.
Suit by Charles C. Clay against Joseph Cummins. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
McDaniel & Whitfield, of Demopolis, for appellant.
R.B Evins, of Greensboro, for appellee.
The suit was brought by an agent, to recover commissions claimed as due for making sale of certain real estate, or the reasonable value of his services in the premises. The giving of the affirmative charge at defendant's request is presented for review.
The rule of good faith that must be observed by the agent in the discharge of his duties to his principal has been of frequent discussion by the courts. Loyalty to his trust is the first duty which the agent owes to his principal. Without it the perfect relation cannot subsist. Reliance upon the agent's integrity, fidelity, and capacity is the moving consideration in the creation of all agencies; in some it is so much the inspiring spirit that the law looks with jealous eyes upon the manner of their execution, and condemns, not only as invalid as to the principal, but as repugnant to public policy, everything that tends to destroy that reliance. Keighler v. Savage Mfg. Co., 12 Md. 383 71 Am.Dec. 600; 1 Mechem on Agency (2d Ed.) 867, § 1188. The last-cited authority (Id., § 1189) states, as the reason for the rule controlling in such cases, that:
See Bentley v. Craven, 18 Beav. 76; Railway Co. v Poor, 59 Me. 277.
In People v. Township, 11 Mich. 222, 225, Mr. Justice Manning declared that so careful is the law in guarding against the abuse of fiduciary relations that it will not permit an agent to act for himself and for his principal in the same transaction, as to buy of himself, as agent, the property of his principal, or the like. All such transactions are void, as they respect the principal, unless ratified by him with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. To repudiate them, he need not show himself damnified; whether he has been or not is immaterial. Actual injury is not the principle the law proceeds on in holding such transactions void. Fidelity in the agent is what is aimed at, and as a means of securing it the law will not permit the agent to place himself in a situation in which he may be tempted by his own private interest to disregard that of his principal.
"This doctrine has its foundation, not so much in the commission of actual fraud, but in that profound knowledge of the human heart which dictated the hallowed petition, 'Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,' and that caused the announcement of the infallible truth that, 'A man cannot serve two masters.' " Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 596, 64 Am.Dec. 775; Porter v. Woodruff, 36 N.J.Eq. 174.
Upon the same principle it is held that the agent may not deal in the business of his agency for his own benefit. Switzer v. Skiles, 3 Gilman (Ill.) 529, 44 Am.Dec. 723; Bunker v. Miles, 30 Me. 431, 50 Am.Dec. 632; Miller v. Davidson, 3 Gilman (Ill.) 518, 44 Am.Dec. 715. And in the case of a sale at a fixed price, by an agent, it is said to be immaterial that the principal has not been injured (People v. Township, supra), or that the agent gave the principal as good terms as anybody would give ( Salsbury v. Ware, 183 Ill. 505. 56 N.E. 149), or that the principal had fixed the price at which he was willing to sell, and that the agent buys at that price (Porter v. Woodruff, supra; Tilleny v. Woolverton, 46 Minn. 256, 48 N.W. 908). See the many cases collected by Mechem (Agency, vol. 1, § 1201) to the effect that fraud or concealment makes voidable the act of the agent predicated thereon.
In Wadsworth v. Adams, 138 U.S. 380, 388, 11 Sup.Ct. 303, 306, 34 L.Ed. 984, involving the agent's right to compensation for making a sale, where he has reserved a secret benefit, Mr. Justice Harlan, writing for the court, said:
See Schaeffer v. Blair, 149 U.S. 248, 13 Sup.Ct. 856, 37 L.Ed. 721; 1 Rose's Notes U.S.Rep. 1108; 19 Cyc. 228; 23 Am. & Eng.Ency.Law (2d Ed.) 921.
In a case (Jeffries v. Robbins, 66 Kan. 427, 71 P. 852) similar to the case at bar the court said:
See like cases of Ryan v. Kahler (Tex.Civ.App.) 46 S.W. 71; Taylor v. Godbold, 76 Ark. 395, 88 S.W. 959.
It has long been held by the courts of this state that the agent cannot become, either directly or by collusion with others, the purchaser at his own sale of property of his principal, and that, if he does so, without the knowledge or consent of the principal, the latter, upon knowledge of the fact, may recover by appropriate action the compensation paid to such agent. And it is likewise settled that an agent who is employed, for a reward, in the transaction of business, and is guilty of bad faith to his principal, forfeits all right to compensation, and that if, in ignorance of the facts, the principal makes payment of the compensation, he may, when informed of them, recover it back as money paid under mistake of fact. Whart. on Agency, § 336; McGar v. Adams, 65 Ala. 106; Waddell v. Lanier, 62 Ala. 347; Adams v. Sayre, 70 Ala. 318, 326; Henderson v. Vincent, 84 Ala. 99, 4 So. 180; Burke v. Taylor, 94 Ala. 530, 10 So. 129; Smith v. McGehee, 14 Ala. 404; Alford v. Creagh, 7 Ala.App. 358, 62 So. 254; Enslen v. Allen, 160 Ala. 529, 535, 49 So. 430.
The law on this subject was recently summed up by Mr. Justice Mayfield with the following quotation in the Waddell Case supra, taken from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comer v. Thompson
... ... immaterial whether the deal was advantageous or ... disadvantageous to the beneficiaries. Harrington v ... Gilchrist (Wis.) 99 N.D. 909; Clay v. Cummings (Ala.) 77 ... It is ... immaterial whether the trustee acted in good faith or bad ... faith. Bank v. R. R. (Ia.) 74 ... ...
-
Roy Realty Co., Inc. v. Burkhardt
... ... concealed from the appellee, notwithstanding the agent was ... requested to inform him who the purchaser was. See Clay ... v. Cummins, 201 Ala. 34; and also 77 So. 328 ... The ... rule of good faith that must be observed by the agent in the ... discharge ... ...
- Aquilino v. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co.