Davis v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 26 February 1896 |
| Citation | 66 N.W. 456,8 S.D. 300 |
| Parties | DAVIS et al. v. MATTHEWS. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
A nonresident agent, authorized by his principal and charged with the exclusive management of a real-estate loan business in this state, including the examination of titles and foreclosure of mortgages, has implied authority to direct a local subagent, through whom all the business has been transacted, to retain a lawyer, whenever the interests of his principal demand professional attention.
Appeal from circuit court, McCook county; Joseph W. Jones, Judge.
Action by Park Davis and others, partners under the name of Davis, Lyon & Gates, against E. P. Matthews. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.E. H. Wilson, for appellant. Davis, Lyon & Gates, pro se.
At the trial of this case in the court below the jury returned a verdict of $100 against the defendant in plaintiffs' favor, upon a claim for attorneys' fees. This appeal is by the defendant from a judgment accordingly entered, and from an order overruling a motion for a new trial. While the testimony essential to a determination of the questions of law presented will be treated in connection therewith, a proper understanding of the theory upon which the case was tried requires a statement of the most influential facts disclosed by the record. There was no question as to the value of the services, and it is not claimed that appellant personally employed respondents to perform the same. In this state and the territory from which the same was organized appellant, a resident of Milwaukee, had been for more than 12 years engaged continuously in the land and real-estate loan business through his agent in that city, to whom it appears he had delegated full power and authority to transact the same. With actual knowledge on the part of appellant, and under the immediate supervision of his Milwaukee agent, the business above referred to was all transacted for appellant by M. Grigsby, Esq., of the city of Sioux Falls, Frequently, and whenever Mr. Grigsby talked with appellant concerning his business in this territory and state, he was invariably given to understand by that gentleman that Mr. Day, the Milwaukee agent, had full charge of the same. Furthermore, the benefits derived from the numerous transactions carried on and consummated by Mr. Grigsby at the request of Mr. Day, including the matter under consideration, seem to have been accepted and retained by appellant without any objection. Under this arrangement, and in the name of appellant, money was loaned, taxes were paid, mortgages were foreclosed, land was bought and sold, both at private and foreclosure sale, and all business incidental thereto was transacted by Mr. Day as manager for appellant, through the agency of Mr. Grigsby. Under the authority actually or ostensibly conferred by appellant, Mr. Day had power “to do everything necessary or proper and usual in the ordinary course of business for effecting the purpose of his agency.” Section 3981, Comp. Laws. It appearsfrom the evidence that the owner of a certain tract of land upon which appellant held a mortgage to secure a loan made through the agency above mentioned had allowed the premises to be sold for delinquent taxes. A deed had been issued, and it became necessary to take immediate steps to remove the cloud thus occasioned, and protect the interests of appellant. The services performed by respondents were in connection with this matter, and are conceded by appellant to be of the value for which judgment was rendered....
To continue reading
Request your trial