Green v. Post
| Decision Date | 29 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19337. |
| Citation | 237 P. 307,135 Wash. 209 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | GREEN v. POST et ux. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Chapman, Judge.
Action by Charles Green against W. T. Post and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.
J. H Gordon, of Tacoma, for appellants.
G. P Fishburne and Homer T. Bone, both of Tacoma, for respondent.
The appellants were building an apartment house, and the respondent claims that he entered into a contract with them to do the plumbing, he to be paid $10 a day, and to buy in his own name all the materials to be used, superintend the work, and to be paid for this 10 per cent. of the cost of the work and material. He brought an action against the appellants based on this contract. The appellants, by their evidence on the trial, attempted to establish a mere employment of the respondent to do the plumbing work at the rate of $10 a day. The jury was satisfied that the respondent's version of the agreement between the parties was the correct one, for it returned a verdict in his favor and included in that verdict an item of $1,288.05, arising from this state of facts: The respondent would purchase the supplies and receive from the appellants the amounts of the bills, which he would pay to the supply house, and then from the supply house, under a secret agreement between them, he would receive a 5 per cent commission on the amount which he had just paid. By these means, instead of receiving just the 10 per cent. which he testified he was to receive from the appellants for his work of superintending and buying the supplies, etc., he received an additional 5 per cent.
In arguing for the elimination of this item from the verdict, the appellants cite authorities in support of the general rule that an agent cannot take advantage of his relationship with his principal so as to make a profit for himself in excess of what has been agreed upon, and that this rule applies even though the principal has not suffered any injury by reason of the agent's dealing. As we understand it, the respondent does not dispute the rule of law thus contended for, but seeks to avoid it by claiming that the relation of the respondent to the appellants was that of an independent contractor.
As we look at it, this is of no advantage to the respondent. An independent contractor and an agent engaging in business...
To continue reading
Request your trial