Tilleny v. Wolverton

• Decision Date: 03 June 1891
• Parties: TILLENY v WOLVERTON ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

46 Minn. 256

48 N.W. 908

TILLENYvWOLVERTON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 3, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where an agent to sell property becomes the purchaser in fact at a sale made by himself, the sale is prima facie voidable by the principal, and to sustain it the agent must prove the facts that make it valid, as that with full knowledge of its character and of all the facts the principal consented to it.

2. The fact that the agent purchased at the price at which he was authorized to sell will not make the transaction valid.

3. If, while the sale is voidable, the agent resells at an increased price, the principal may require him to account for what he received on the resale.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; LOCHREN, Judge.

C. H. Rossman, for appellant.

Koon, Whelan & Bennett, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

These facts substantially appear by the pleadings: The plaintiff, being the owner of certain real estate, made the defendants her agents to sell the same at the price of $35,000, she agreeing to pay them a commission of 2 1/2 per cent. for making a sale; that, while such agents, the defendants made a sale at said price to Jewett, Keith, Johnson, and themselves, with the understanding that the title should be taken for the benefit of all by Jewett, and that he should execute his notes and mortgage for the deferred payments; that upon such sale the plaintiff executed the conveyance to Jewett, and he executed the notes and mortgage for the deferred payments, and plaintiff thereupon paid defendants the agreed commission for making the sale; and that within a year after the conveyance to Jewett he, for the benefit of himself, Keith, Johnson, and defendants, sold and conveyed the land to one Anderson for $80,000. The defendants, in their brief, endeavor to show that their answer denies that they made the sale upon which the conveyance to Jewett was made. We cannot so understand the answer. It alleges that they agreed to take an interest in the purchase for the purpose of effecting said sale, and that thereupon Jewett entered into negotiations with plaintiff for the purpose of closing up said sale and fixing upon the terms of the purchase, and that plaintiff paid them the full amount of the agreed commissions for their services in effecting said sale; from which it is manifest that they made the sale, although they may have left some of the terms of payment to be agreed on between Jewett, their co-purchaser, and the plaintiff. It is therefore a case where agents employed to sell property, upon a sale made wholly or in part by them, have become...