Kingsley v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 30 June 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,420 - (189) |
| Citation | 104 N.W. 543,95 Minn. 360 |
| Parties | ADELAIDE KINGSLEY v. SHERMAN WHEELER and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Polk county, Watts, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Affirmed.
Real Estate Agent.
The evidence in this case was sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the defendants were the agents of the plaintiff for the sale of land.
Real Estate Agent.
A real estate agent enjoys no exemption from the ordinary rules governing the relationship of principal and agent.
Duty to His Principal.
Such an agent owes to his principal the duty of making a full, fair and prompt disclosure of all circumstances affecting the principal's rights or interests. Whatever advantage accrues to him by a violation of that duty he must make good to the principal. If, after he has in fact contracted to sell land to a third person at an advanced price, he purchases the land himself from his principal, without disclosing the contract, and if he thereafter completes the sale, he renders himself liable to his principal in damages.
H Steenerson and Charles Loring, for appellants.
E. O. Hagen, for respondent.
In this case an action was brought by the plaintiff and respondent to recover from the defendants and appellants profits alleged to have been made by the defendants in the sale of a certain tract of land, under the claim by the plaintiff that at the time of the sale the defendants were her agents. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $600.
The defendants were the owners of the land described in the complaint, and on June 6 sold the land, three hundred twenty acres, to the plaintiff, at the rate of $24.50 per acre, and for a sum of $7,840 in the aggregate. On September 23 the defendants procured a purchaser for the land, and contracted to sell it for the sum of $30 per acre, or the sum of $9,600 in the aggregate. On the same day one of them went to the residence of the plaintiff and bought the land back from plaintiff at the same price she had paid for it. The defendants did not inform the plaintiff of the facts in reference to this contract of sale, and the plaintiff did not discover them until afterward. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendants were her agents for sale at the time they contracted to sell the land at an advanced price; that they falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiff that they were unable to find and produce a purchaser for the land, and induced her to sell to them at the price at which she bought, and by false and fraudulent representations induced the plaintiff to give to the defendants the crop on the premises, of the value of $375. The defendants denied the misrepresentations, and especially contended that they were not the agents of the plaintiff for the sale of the premises. Under the charge of the court, upon the evidence introduced upon the issues raised by the pleadings, the jury found in effect that the defendants were the agents of the plaintiff for the purpose of selling the land. The defendants urged upon this court that this verdict was not sustained by the evidence. This is the substance of the controversy.
1. An examination of the evidence shows, among other things, that plaintiff bought the land, as the defendants knew, for speculative purposes, in the hope, based in some measure upon defendants' statements, that it would increase rapidly in value. She had no agents other than the defendants for the sale of that land. She entered into an arrangement with them for a division of the crops. She became discouraged as to her venture, and defendants encouraged her despondency until she was willing to sell at a small increase over the price for which she had bought. A series of letters concerning the land itself, crops, and its sale by defendants were exchanged. There is room for much legitimate controversy as to whether or not these letters, including one proved by parol, amounted to a listing of the lands for sale by defendants. Construing the testimony as a whole, we are of opinion that the jury was justified in finding that the defendants were the agents of plaintiff for the sale of the land.
Defendants further contend that, if they were appointed the agents of...
To continue reading
Request your trial