Rinebarger v. Weesner
| Citation | 137 P. 969,91 Kan. 303 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,532 |
| Parties | GEORGE R. RINEBARGER, Appellee, v. A. M. WEESNER et al., Appellants |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1914
Appeal from Chase district court; FREDERICK A. MECKEL, judge.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. VENDOR AND VENDEE -- Agent Receiving Commissions from Both--Bad Faith. Good faith is a vital principle of the law of agency which prohibits a real-estate broker from acting as the agent of both the vendor and vendee where their interests are antagonistic, without the knowledge of each that he is employed by the other.
2. DUAL CAPACITY--Of Agent--Contract Unenforceable. A contract to convey land made through the services of an agent employed and paid by the vendor will not be enforced against him when, without his knowledge or consent, the vendee paid the agent a commission also for his assistance in making the purchase.
Owen S. Samuel, of Emporia, and Dudley Doolittle, of Cottonwood Falls, for the appellants.
W. L. Huggins, Humbert Riddle, and Henry E. Ganse, all of Emporia, for the appellee.
This is an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The defense is based upon the alleged fraud of the defendants' agent in negotiating the sale. A demurrer to the defendants' evidence was sustained and they appeal.
The defendants' evidence tended to prove the following facts: They authorized J. E. Bocock, a real-estate agent, to find a purchaser for their farm at the price of $ 7500. The agent afterward came to the farm, accompanied by the plaintiff. After looking over the place he came into the house, leaving the plaintiff outside, and told the defendants that he had brought a man to buy the farm; that he had talked a good deal with him and could not get their price but had succeeded in obtaining an offer of $ 5000. This offer was at once declined, and the agent then went out to the roadside one or more times during the negotiations and talked with the plaintiff, and finally returned to the house and said that he, the agent, would give $ 6500 for the place net, clear of all expenses, and would himself sell it to the customer for $ 7000. This disposition, if carried out, it will be seen, would have given the agent $ 500 compensation for his services. The fact was, however, that the plaintiff had offered the agent $ 7000 for the farm, but this offer was not made known to his principals. On the contrary, when Mr. Weesner said that he would go out and talk with the customer the agent persuaded him not to do so, saying that it would spoil the trade, thus keeping the defendants in ignorance of the offer. After the defendants had consented to take $ 6500 net for their farm, the agent went out again and said to the customer: "There is just $ 200 between us" which the plaintiff then agreed to pay to the agent in addition to the $ 7000. The plaintiff was then brought into the house by the agent and introduced to the defendants, and at the agent's suggestion the parties arranged to meet in town to have a contract written. This was done on the same day, and the contract was signed by the parties for the sale of the farm for $ 7000, $ 100 being paid down. The $ 100 was borrowed by the plaintiff from the agent, to whom the plaintiff gave his note for $ 300 to secure the repayment of the $ 100 borrowed and the $ 200 he had agreed to pay the defendants' agent.
A few days after the contract was signed the defendants learned for the first time that the plaintiff had offered $ 7000 for the place before their agent had made the proposition to pay them $ 6500 for it, and that after making that offer the plaintiff had agreed to pay the agent $ 200 in order to get the place. The abstract recites that after being told that the defendants had paid their agent $ 500 commission, the plaintiff said to one of defendants' witnesses:
"I am paying him $ 200.00 . . . I had offered him $ 7000.00 for the place and those other items mentioned in the contract and Mr. Bocock had come back to me, returned after the conversation, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Bowen
... ... v. Spencer (Horner v ... Spencer), 21 Okla. 155, 95 P. 757, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 622, ... also extensive note to above case; Rinebarger v. Weesner, 91 ... Kan. 303, 137 P. 969 ... He ... cannot recover compensation from either without showing ... consent of both ... ...
-
Campbell v. Wilcoxen
... ... Provident Institution, 77 Kan. 415, ... 94 P. 793; Bank v. Insurance Co., 91 Kan. 18, 137 P ... 78, 49 L.R.A. (N. S.) 972; Rinebarger v. Weesner, 91 ... Kan. 303, 137 P. 969; Crawford v. Investment Co., 91 ... Kan. 748, 139 P. 481; and Hoffhines v. Thorson, 92 ... Kan. 605, 141 ... ...
-
Hoffhines v. Thorson
... ... Insurance Co., 90 ... Kan. 355, 133 P. 715, and in Bank v. Insurance Co., ... 91 Kan. 18, 137 P. 78, in Rinebarger v. Weesner, 91 ... Kan. 303, 137 P. 969, and in Crawford v. Investment ... Co., 91 Kan. 748, 139 P. 481. In the latter the rule was ... stated ... ...
-
Ratliffe v. Cease
...of the plaintiff's fraud. ( Jeffries v. Robbins, 66 Kan. 427, 71 P. 852; Kershaw v. Schafer, 88 Kan. 691, 129 P. 1137; Rinebarger v. Weesner, 91 Kan. 303, 137 P. 969; 2 J. § 356, p. 697, and cases cited; 31 Cyc. 1434.) The plaintiff wronged the defendant out of $ 500. If he had been honest ......