Rice v. Davis

• Decision Date: 06 October 1890
• Docket Number: 235
• Citation: 136 Pa. 439,20 A. 513
• Parties: J. N. RICE v. J. R. DAVIS
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

20 A. 513

136 Pa. 439

J. N. RICE v. J. R. DAVIS

No. 235

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 6, 1890

Argued April 15, 1890

APPEAL BY DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

No. 235 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 118 March Term 1886, C.P.

On February 23, 1886, Dr. J. N. Rice brought assumpsit against John R. Davis. Issue.

At the trial on December 5, 1889, the plaintiff adduced evidence to the effect that he was employed by the defendant to sell for him his interest, to wit, forty shares of the capital of the Clear Spring Coal Company; that, if he sold the shares for $45,000, he was to be paid well for his services, and that he had made sale of said shares to DeWitt and Cake for the sum stated. The substance of the defendant's evidence was that, although he had put the shares into the hands of the plaintiff for sale, the plaintiff was not to be paid compensation, unless he found a purchaser for the shares at the sum of $50,000; that the plaintiff found certain purchasers at the sum of $45,000, but that Cake and DeWitt who were shareholders with the defendant, objected to one of them as a shareholder of the company, and offered to purchase the defendant's shares themselves, with the others of the proposed purchasers, for $45,000; that the defendant declined to deal with this proposition, unless he was released from the arrangement with the plaintiff; that Cake and DeWitt and the defendant himself had interviews with the plaintiff, and the latter accordingly released the defendant, and a sale by the defendant himself to Cake, DeWitt and the others at $45,000 was then completed. It was also shown that the plaintiff received from the purchasers four shares of the stock, valued at $4,500, as compensation for his services and that these shares were so turned over to the plaintiff with the knowledge and without the objection of the defendant.

At the close of the testimony, the court, WOODWARD, J., submitted to the jury to find what the contract between the plaintiff and defendant was, answering certain points for instruction as shown in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $800. Judgment having been entered, the defendant took this appeal assigning the answers to said points for error.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. Henry W. Palmer, for the appellant.

Counsel cited: Everhart v. Searle, 71 Pa. 259; Penna. R. Co. v. Flanigan, 112 Pa. 558; Utica Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co., 17 Barb. 134; Campbell v. Insurance Co., 2 Wh. 55; Paley on Agency, 32.

Mr. Alexander Farnham (with him Mr. F. C. Mosier), for the appellee.

Counsel cited: Ritter v. Railroad Co., 7 W.N. 122; Reed v. Reed, 82 Pa. 420; Pearsoll v. Chapin, 44 Pa. 9.

Before STERRETT, GREEN, CLARK, WILLIAMS and McCOLLUM, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE STERRETT:

In reaching the conclusion embodied in their verdict, the jury must have found as a fact that plaintiff was employed by defendant to sell his stock in the Clear Spring Coal Company, and that he succeeded in doing so. If there was nothing else in the case, the judgment should be affirmed; but it was clearly shown by plaintiff's own evidence that he received from the purchasers, for his services in the matter, four shares of the stock, worth about $4,500.

In view of that evidence, the defendant requested the court to charge that, "under the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the plaintiff received compensation from the purchasers of the Davis shares, and therefore cannot maintain this action for compensation from Mr. Davis." The plaintiff, on the other hand, asked the court to charge: "If the jury believe that Mr. Davis agreed to pay Dr. Rice a compensation for his services in effecting a sale of the interest of Mr. Davis in the Clear Spring Coal Company for $45,000 and that he effected a sale accordingly, at the price agreed on, he is entitled to recover the value of his services to defendant; and, it being admitted by the defendant and shown by documentary evidence in the case, that the defendant knew Dr. Rice was to receive four shares of stock from the purchasers, and the defendant consenting, the fact of Dr. Rice's receiving said shares does not operate to prevent the plaintiff's recovering."

These points were answered together, as follows: "If the jury find that Dr. Rice, under the agreement with Davis, made sale of the property at a price fixed by the defendant himself and thereby entitled himself to compensation for his services rendered, then the fact that he received four shares of stock from the purchasers, in the manner described by the witnesses and with the full knowledge of the defendant as to the nature of the transaction, would not prevent, in our judgment, his recovering in this action. We say, further, in this connection; the evidence in this case shows that all the parties were members of the same company; that DeWitt and Cake knew that Dr. Rice was claiming a commission from Davis; and it also shows that Davis knew that Dr. Rice was to have four shares of the stock of the company. Knowledge of these facts by all the parties, without complaint or dissent at the time, and without any evidence of bad faith in the transaction, takes the case out of the class of cases to which we have been referred, where it has been held that an agent is not to be allowed compensation from both parties to a sale. With every disposition to recognize the force of the decisions to which the learned gentlemen...