Goss v. Brown

• Decision Date: 31 January 1884
• Citation: 31 Minn. 484,18 N.W. 290
• Parties: GOSS v BROWN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

31 Minn. 484

18 N.W. 290

GOSSvBROWN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed January 31, 1884.

Appeal from an order of the district court of Hennepin county, overruling motion for a new trial.

Merrick & Merrick, for respondent, Charles M. Goss.

F. B. Hart, for appellant, William A. Brown.

DICKINSON, J.

The defendant authorized the plaintiff, as his agent, to sell a tract of land, for which he was to receive a stipulated compensation. This action is for the recovery of that compensation. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant seeks a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. The terms of sale prescribed by the defendant to the plaintiff were that the price should be eight thousand dollars; “three thousand cash, and a first mortgage, payable on or before three years, for the balance of purchase money,” ($5,000.) On the eighteenth day of December, 1882, the defendant contracted in writing with one Paulson, for the sale of the property for eight thousand dollars; “three thousand dollars cash, balance on or before three years from January, 1883, at eight per cent. interest per annum.” This agreement also provided that the deed should be delivered within 30 days. No money was paid at the time of making the contract, but the purchaser gave the plaintiff his check for $100. There is evidence that the defendant was informed of this contract of sale on the day it was made. On the following day the defendant himself sold the same property to another person.

The appellant claims that the agent did not comply with the conditions imposed upon him in that he did not procure the payment of any money from Paulson. It does not appear that it was the plaintiff's duty, in exercising the authority conferred, to procure the payment of any money. He became entitled to the stipulated compensation when he had done all that he was empowered to do. This he did by negotiating a sale and making a contract binding the purchaser to a performance of the terms prescribed. The power of the agent extended no further. He could not convey the property to the purchaser. It was for the defendant to make the deed of conveyance, and with that the plaintiff, as agent, had nothing to do. The payment of money was not necesary to make valid and binding the contract of sale, nor do the prescribed terms, “three thousand dollars cash,” import that that sum, or any money, was to be paid prior to the conveyance of the property to the...