Hilliker v. Allen

• Decision Date: 20 October 1905
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: C. M. HILLIKER & SON v. ALLEN.

128 Iowa 607

105 N.W. 120

C. M. HILLIKER & SON

v.ALLEN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 20, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; William Hutchinson, Judge.

The parties hereto entered into a written agreement by the terms of which the plaintiffs were appointed the defendant's agents for the sale of engines and threshing machinery in Akron, Iowa, and the trade tributary thereto. They were to canvass the territory for the sale of said machinery, and bound themselves not to sell or take orders for the sale of other machines of the same character. The contract further provided that, if the plaintiffs failed to canvass their territory or to conduct the business to the satisfaction of the defendant, he had the right to terminate the agency or place his own canvassers in said territory, and that on any sales made by such canvassers no commission should be allowed the plaintiffs. This suit was brought to recover a commission alleged to be due on the sale of an outfit in the trade territory covered by the contract. There was a trial to the court and a finding and judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appeals. Affirmed.Henderson & Fribourg, for appellant.

Kennedy & Boland and F. W. Sargent, for appellees.

SHERWIN, C. J.

The sale was actually made by the defendant, with the aid of his own canvassers, and there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether the plaintiffs were instrumental in procuring the purchaser. The trial court found that they were, and the finding has ample support in the evidence. Denying the correctness of this finding, the appellant contends that the plaintiffs so neglected the business of their agency as to justify the defendant in sending his own canvassers into the field, and that, under the provision of the contract permitting this to be done when the business was not conducted to his satisfaction, there can be no recovery. There was no termination of the agency, and, if there was, in fact, any dissatisfaction on the part of Allen as to the conduct of the business, the plaintiffs were not notified thereof, and it would certainly be extremely unfair to them to place canvassers in their territory without advising them in advance of such intention. The contract, fairly construed, confers no such right on the principal. Furthermore, the conduct and letters of the appellant negative his claim that he sent his own canvassers into the field because of the plaintiffs' failure to properly conduct the...