Staten v. Hammer

• Decision Date: 23 October 1903
• Citation: 96 N.W. 964,121 Iowa 499
• Parties: E. J. STATEN, Appellant, v. A. HAMMER, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

96 N.W. 964

121 Iowa 499

E. J. STATEN, Appellant, v. A. HAMMER, Appellee

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 23, 1903

Appeal from Harrison District Court.--HON. A. B. THORNELL, Judge.

ACTION in equity to enforce specific performance of contract to convey land. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Cochran & Egan for appellant.

Roadifer & Arthur for appellee.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

The alleged contract to sell and convey was made by one Robinson who claimed to be the authorized agent for defendant for that purpose. Defendant denied having employed or authorized Robinson to sell the land, and further says that, if such an agency be established, said agent exceeded his authority in making the contract sued upon, and the same has never been approved or ratified by defendant. After hearing the testimony, the district court found that defendant did constitute Robinson his agent to sell the land, but further found that the contract made contained stipulations not authorized by defendant, and that plaintiff was therefore not entitled to specific performance. It is unnecessary for us to consider whether the alleged agency is established by the evidence, for, assuming the plaintiff's position in this respect to be correct, we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the district court as to the agent's act being in excess of his authority is clearly correct. Robinson's own statement as to his authority to sell is as follows: "I asked him what it [the price] was. He told me, and I asked him if I should sell it at that for him and he said that at any time I could get that price to sell it. * * * All Mr. Hammer said was that he authorized me to sell at that price"--$ 25 per acre. Robinson does not claim that he was authorized to make a written contract in defendant's name, or at any time was authorized to depart from the terms first stated. The contract made by him with plaintiff is in writing, and provides for the payment of $ 500 on the signing of the contract, which was June 4, 1901 and the further sum of $ 2,500 on or before July 1, 1901 with out interest. He further undertook to furnish plaintiff with an abstract of title showing the same to be free and clear in defendant, and to pay all taxes and the interest on an existing mortgage to March 1, 1902, on which date possession of the premises in good condition was to be given plaintiff. It is an elementary proposition that simple authority to sell at...