Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-08

The legal principle applicable in such pur-
chases by the Districts intermediary as that of
the ninth precinct station site is to the follow
ing effect: If person assisting me and in my
confidence obtains information from me in re-
spect to the property concerning which he is
acting, which information he would not have
obtained except by virtue of his relation to me,
and of which he makes use and acquires title,
then merely by virtue of the fiduciary relation
my assistant is estopped from acquiring an
interest adverse to me, and, obtaining title, he
will be viewed as a constructive trustee and 1
will be the real purchaser. Such an agency,
though it relate to real estate, may be created
and proved by parol. 1t makes no difference
that my agent has received no valuable con-
sideration for entering upon the re-
lation. In the case of Switzer vs..
skiles, 8 Gilman 0ll) 534, it is said: The
confidence reposed in him, the actual entering
on the duties of the trust. and the injury which
may result to the beneficiary if he do not faith
fully perform it, are regarded as good and
sufficient consideration" No loss of any kind
to me needs to be shown. The trust arises
from the fiduciary relation. II there is loss to
me in such a case, resulting from fraud, a
new ground for holding my assistant is fur
my part is essential. by the testimony. it APP
pears that the Commissioners placed unlimited
confidence in their assistant in the real estate
purchases. His opinion was weighty in the
selection of sites, and his views in respect to
the reasonableness of prices were highly re-
garded- Offers by other agents of property
were turned over to him. So thoroughly was
he trusted that in negotiations for purchase, if
he, l-aI, a.
and il seems never TO have been so regarded.
the Commissioners would never go beyond
him to ascertain whether the property could
not be obtained more cheaply from the
vendor directly. He was ON such a footing
with the Commissioners that he never "got
left in any of his negotiations through their
fault, and he could reasonably count on their
friendly preference. Through these confden-
tial relations he could ascertain with precision
what site would be bought,-indeed his opinion
was factor in deciding this point. In cases
where, without the knowledge of the District,
he bought for himself the site indicated, and
concealing the fact that he was the real vendor,
and utilizing the confidence Of the Commits
sioners in his opinion concerning prices, and
their friendly preference of him a negotia-
tor, he sold again at an advance to the District,
he would seem to place himself within the
range Of the legal principle cited. If any loss
to the District needed to be shown it would
be found in the fact that the purchase
by the assistant took the property out
of the hanSs of one who did not
know that the District specially desired it for a
special purpose and placed it in the possession
Of one who had this knowledge, with the re-
suit Of increasing the price. The showing
made against the intermediary even by the i'm
perfect examination Of the investigating COM
mittee is as strong as that established in the
line Of cases represented by Cover vs.. An
drew, SO CAL, 119; Webster vs.. King 80 Cal.
34S; Hardenbergh VS.. Bacon. 80 Cal. $50, and
many others cited in Pomeroy's Equity Juris-
prudence 4S7 n 8, 62s n ]. and 631 N. 1.