Kimmell v. Powers
Decision Date | 05 September 1907 |
Citation | 1907 OK 121,19 Okla. 339,91 P. 687 |
Parties | CYRUS KIMMELL v. OLIVER POWERS, Executor, et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT--Relationship--Case. A contract, whereby the owner of an addition to a town gives to another the management and exclusive sale of the same for a period of ten years, and agrees to pay to such person twenty-five per cent. of the proceeds of sales, after deducting the current expense, and also agrees that, if any part of the addition remains unsold at the end of that time, it shall be appraised and the owner to have three-fourths thereof and the other party one-fourth, constitutes the relation of principal and agent, and does not vest the agent with any interest in the real estate itself.
2. SAME--Termination of Agency--Death of Party. Where the relation of principal and agent exists, the death of either party terminates the agency, except where the agent has a pecuniary interest of his own in the execution of the agency.
3. PLEADING--Petition--Demurrer. Where a petition neither states a cause of action in equity or at law, a demurrer thereto should be sustained.
Error from the District Court of Comanche County; before Frank E. Gillette, Trial Judge.
Affirmed.
Black & Trosper, for plaintiff in error.
Stevens & Myers and Hudson & Keys, for defendants in error.
¶1 James R. Woods was the owner of a valuable claim adjoining the city of Lawton, which was afterwards platted and known as Woods' Addition to that city. On March 5, 1902, Mr. Woods died, and the legal title to this land became vested in his wife, who was a daughter of the plaintiff. After the death of James R. Woods, the plaintiff, on October 17, 1902, entered into a written contract with his daughter, Alta M. Woods, whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff should have charge of the selling and management of this addition, as well as the management of investments to be made with Mrs. Woods' money. The contract is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anthony v. Bliss
...weigh conflicting evidence, but will treat the evidence as withdrawn which is most favorable to the demurrant." (Id.) Kimmell v. Powers, 19 Okla. 339, 91 P. 687; Cole v. Missouri, K. & O. R. Co., 20 Okla. 227, 94 P. 540, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 268; Ziska v. Ziska, 20 Okla. 634, 95 P. 254, 23 L.R.......
-
Schilling v. Vir
... ... In Kimmell v. Powers, 19 Okla. 339, 91 P. 687, action was brought by Kimmel against Powers to secure the specific performance of a contract by which Kimmel was ... ...
-
Sauls v. Whitman
...party terminates the agency, except where the agent has a pecuniary interest of his own in the execution of the agency, Kimmell v. Powers, 19 Okla. 339, 91 P. 687. It is not claimed that defendants had such a vested interest here, in the cash in their possession, as to constitute "a power c......
-
Catlin v. Reed
...the principal terminates the authority of an agent. 2 C. J. 546, paragraph 179. The rule has been stated by this court in Kimmell v. Powers, 19 Okla. 339, 91 P. 687, to wit:"Where the relation of principal and agent exists, the death of either party terminates the agency, except where the a......