Morrison v. F.A. Dutton Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1925
• Citation: 251 Mass. 431,146 N.E. 713
• Parties: MORRISON v. F. A. DUTTON MOTOR CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

251 Mass. 431

146 N.E. 713

MORRISON

v.F. A. DUTTON MOTOR CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Feb. 26, 1925.

Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; L. S. Cox, Judge.

Action of contract by George W. Morrison against the F. A. Dutton Motor Company to recover commission on sale of an automobile. Jury found for plaintiff, and case was reported. Affirmed.

R. J. Lavelle, of Lowell, for plaintiff.

J. J. Higgins, of Boston, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

A contract in writing between the plaintiff and the defendant, dated February 25, 1919, to terminate in August, 1919, gave to the plaintiff the exclusive agency of the sale of ‘Auburn’ automobiles in the city of Lowell and vicinity, not including the city of Revere. There was evidence that the defendant sold to J. L. Deno of Revere, an automobile, at the Boston automobile show in Boston, March, 1919; that Deno was a brother of Mrs. Agnes Lanoue of Lowell; that she was in fact the purchaser; that an old automobile belonging to her was given in part payment and the balance of the purchase price was paid with her money. It was agreed that, according to a trade custom, if an automobile was sold at the Boston automobile show, credit was given to the agent for the territory in which the real purchaser resides. There was no evidence that the defendant knew that Mrs. Lanoue furnished the money to buy the automobile. The action is in contract. The jury found for the plaintiff; and the case was reported to this court.

If the jury found that the motor car was sold to Mrs. Lanoue and that Deno was her agent in making the bargain with the defendant, she was an undisclosed principal and bound by the contract with its benefits and burdens, and was in fact the purchaser. See Byington v. Simpson, 134 Mass. 169, 45 Am. Rep. 314. Mrs. Lanoue resided in Lowell. The defendant, during the continuance of the contract, agreed not to ‘sell any new automobiles to any other person than’ the plaintiff ‘within said territory.’ A sale to a resident of Lowell by the defendant, therefore, was a violation of the plaintiff's rights under the contract, and entitled him to recover. Garfield v. Peerless Motor Car Co., 189 Mass. 395, 403, 75 N. E. 695;Wier v. American Locomotive Co., 215 Mass. 303, 309, 310, 102 N. E. 481;Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co., 212 Mass. 352, 378, 99 N. E. 221. The fact that the defendant acted in good faith, and did not know that Deno was the agent of his sister, is not...