Sullivant v. Jahren
Decision Date | 11 March 1905 |
Docket Number | 14,000 |
Citation | 79 P. 1071,71 Kan. 127 |
Parties | S. L. SULLIVANT v. A. O. JAHREN et al |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1905.
Error from Butler district court; GRANVILLE P. AIKMAN, judge.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. AGENCY--Real-estate Broker--Scope of his Authority. A real-estate broker or agent is one who negotiates sales of real estate. His business generally is to find a purchaser who is willing to buy on the terms fixed by the owner; that is, to bring the owner and a purchaser together. He has no implied authority to bind the principal by signing a contract of sale. Nor has he such authority to fix terms of sale, time of possession, or the covenants to be contained in the deed. Nor can he materially change the terms of sale fixed by the principal, without the latter's consent. He is a special agent, and must pursue his instructions and act within the scope of his limited powers; and those who deal with him, if he exceed his authority, do so at their peril.
2. AGENCY--Agent's Authority Held a Question of Law. The authority given by the owner of the land to his agent in this case was all embodied in letters and a telegram. Not being ambiguous, what they mean is a question of law and not of fact, and this court is not hampered by the findings of fact made by the trial court as to the meaning of these writings.
Henry E. Ganse, and H. W. Schumacher, for plaintiff in error.
Hamilton & Leydig, and E. N. Smith, for defendants in error.
OPINION
A. O. Jahren brought this suit in the district court of Butler county against his codefendant in error, Theodore Weyant, and the plaintiff in error (to whom Weyant had conveyed the land), for the specific performance of a contract of sale of certain land in that county from Weyant to Jahren. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff below, and Sullivant brings the case to this court for review.
On May 30, 1898, Weyant wrote a letter dated at Columbus, Ohio, where he resided and continued to reside during all the negotiations in question, and addressed the same to "Real-estate Agent, Rosalia, Butler county, Kansas," which letter came into the hands of J. C. Songer, a real-estate agent of that place. The letter described the land in controversy, about 960 acres, and related to the leasing of the same, except these words: "Or, if you have a customer who wants to purchase, the land is for sale."
Having received an answer from Songer in the meantime, on June 13, 1898, Weyant wrote a postal card to Songer in which the only reference to the sale of the land was the following:
A number of letters passed between Songer at Rosalia, Kan., and Weyant at Columbus, Ohio, in regard to the price of the land and prospective purchasers, but nothing conferring any authority by any possible construction, or as to a definite proposition of sale, until the following letter:
Yours respectfully, THEO. WEYANT.
"Advise me as to consideration and to whom you want deed."
To which Songer replied as follows:
Yours respectfully, J. C. SONGER.
To which Weyant replied with the following telegram:
On the same day Weyant wrote and mailed the following letter:
There were no personal interviews between Songer and Weyant, and these are the only writings that could bear upon Songer's authority as agent of Weyant.
Three days after the date of this last letter and telegram, and after such letter and telegram had been received at Rosalia, Kan., Songer undertook, as the agent of Weyant, to execute with A. O. Jahren a written contract, signed by Jahren and by Songer, affixing Weyant's name thereto by himself, as agent. Among the provisions of that contract is the following:
"In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Griffith v. Frankfort General Insurance Company
...cannot exist. Mechem Agency, §§ 274, 289, 290, pp. 176, 177, 190, 191; Pehl v. Fanton, 17 Cal.App. 247, 119 P. 400; Sullivant v. Jahren, 71 Kan. 127, 79 P. 1071; Brown v. Grady, 16 Wyo. 151, 92 P. 622; Invest. Co. v. Coolidge, 46 Colo. 345, 104 P. 392; Speer v. Craig, 16 Colo. 478, 27 P. 89......
-
The Kansas Wheat Growers Association v. Rowan
... ... Leslie had the authority now claimed for him. (See Wilcox ... v. Eadie, 65 Kan. 459, 463, 70 P. 338; Sullivant v ... Jahren, 71 Kan. 127, 79 P. 1071; Schimmelpennich et ... al. v. Bayard et al., 26 U.S. 264, 7 L.Ed. 138; ... Texas Co. v. Quelquejeu, 263 F ... ...
-
Winkel v. Atlas Lumber Company, a Corporation
...Co. 38 Ore. 560, 63 P. 16, 64 P. 854; Anderson v. Adams, 43 Ore. 621, 74 P. 215; Atwood v. Rose, 32 Okla. 355, 122 P. 929; Sullivant v. Jahren, 71 Kan. 127, 79 P. 1071; Philadelphia Mortg. & T. Co. v. Hardesty, 68 683, 75 P. 1115; Cain Bros. Co. v. Wallace, 46 Kan. 138, 26 P. 445. An agent ......
-
Harrigan v. Dodge
...Sharp, L. R. 19 Eq. 108; Rosenbaum v. Belson [1900] 2 Ch. 267; Robertson v. Allen, 107 C. C. A. 254, 263,284 Fed. 372;Sullivant v. Jahren 71 Kan. 127, 132,79 Pac. 1971;Shirley v. Coffin, 103 Tex. 537, 131 S. W. 404;Smith v. Craig, 61 Wash. 528, 112 Pac. 513;John Gund Brewing Co. v. Tourtelo......