Nesbitt v. Helser
| Decision Date | 29 February 1872 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 383 |
| Parties | CHARLES J. NESBITT, Respondent, v. SOLOMON HELSER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.
Woodson, Vinyard & Young, for appellant.
The agency created by the contract sued on was a special as contradistinguished from a general agency, and its directions must have been strictly pursued in order to hold the principal liable under the contract. And it makes no difference that the attempted departure from those instructions by the agent was for the interest and benefit of the principal. Every man has a right to decide for himself how his own business shall be conducted. (Tate v. Evans, 7 Mo. 419; Sto. Eq., §§ 126-7 et seq.; Mechanics' Bank v. Schaumberg et al., 38 Mo. 28; Pars. Cont. 59.)
A. P. Hereford, for respondent.
A broker or agent who undertakes to sell property for another for commission, if he finds a purchaser willing to buy at the price, has earned his commission and can recover if sale is never completed, provided the failure to complete the same was in consequence of a defect of title and without fault of the broker. (Doty v. Miller, 5 Am. Law Reg. 120.)WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant owned a piece of land in Buchanan county and employed the plaintiff to sell the same, agreeing to give him all that he would obtain over the sum of $1,800; the sale to be made on a credit of one, two and three years, payments in equal annual installments, with six per cent. interest. Plaintiff sold the land, but on different and better terms; that is, the purchaser agreed to pay $2,000 for it, $1,000 in cash and the balance in two equal payments at six and twelve months, with ten per cent. interest. It is alleged that these terms were transmitted to the defendant, and that he approved and ratified the same, and that he was requested to make out and deliver a conveyance of the premises to the purchaser.
When the records were examined an encumbrance was found on the land, and the buyer refused to part with his money and execute the contract till the same was removed. The defendant never executed a deed or took any steps to remove the encumbrance, and the plaintiff has now brought this action to recover $200, the amount which he was to receive for making the sale.
The judge of the Circuit Court having been of counsel by agreement of the parties, the whole case was submitted to Jeff. Chandler, an attorney at law, who heard the evidence, reported the same, and, as a conclusion of law, on the facts determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed. Judgment was therefore given for him.
The sale was not made in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paisley v. Lucas
...appointed by plaintiff in the instances mentioned in said stipulation 2. 1 Mechem on Agency (2 Ed.), sec. 500, p. 364; Nesbit v. Hessler, 49 Mo. 383; Gellett v. Reed, 117 Mo. 553; Beegles v. Robertson, 135 Mo. App. 306; Carrie v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 130 S.E. 582. (2) Plaintiff'......
-
Prideaux v. Plymouth Securities Co.
... ... v. Turner, 171 Mo.App. 661, 154 S.W. 816; ... Christensen v. Wooley, 41 Mo.App. 53; Hayden v ... Crillo, 35 Mo.App. 647; Nesbitt v. Helser, 49 ... Mo. 383; Bird v. Rowell, 180 Mo.App. 421, 167 S.W ... 1172; Robertson v. Kochtitzky, 217 S.W. 543; ... Hammack v. Friend, ... ...
- Paisley v. Lucas
-
Prideaux v. Plymouth Securities Co., 22979.
...v. Turner, 171 Mo. App. 661, 154 S.W. 816; Christensen v. Wooley, 41 Mo. App. 53; Hayden v. Crillo, 35 Mo. App. 647; Nesbitt v. Helser, 49 Mo. 383; Bird v. Rowell, 180 Mo. App. 421, 167 S.W. 1172; Robertson v. Kochtitzky, 217 S.W. 543; Hammack v. Friend, 180 Mo. App. 472, 166 S.W. 647; Bard......