Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-11-18
OTHER RESCRIPTS.
Law Court Hands Down Decisions in
Several Important Gases.

Other rescripts have been handed
down as follows:
Penobscot County.
Lee X. Reed VS.. Abram Libby Re
script, Per Curiam
This is an acuon of assumpsit IN
which the plaintiff seeks to recover from
the defendant s265 claimed to be due
him as commission for the sale of a
tract of wild land. The defendant be-
ing the owner Of a tract of land Hnov.I
as Mile square II, in the town of Cnes-
ter about oct II, orally authorized the
plaintiff 10 sell the land for him. The
selling price was to be not less than
- per acre making the price of the
Whole tract $3.50 If the paintiff sold it
Tor mat price he was to be paid s25 for
nus services; but the plantif was not
limited To that price. lie was authorized
to sell 1t for as much more as he could
ana all he obtained over $3.50 he was to
nave IN addition to the SIS to be paid
hlin as commission as aforesaid. The
ptalnun claims the agreement was to
continue two weeks The defendant
claims he gave the plaintiff 30 days in
Whlch 10 sell the land. When the on
tloh expired, whether it was two weeks
or 30 days. the parties agreed that the
plalntllf applied FOR an extent.on. and
another agreement was made to extend
the time given plaintiff to sell the land
Ihe defendant claims it was two weeks:
the plaintin testified that the defend
ant said the deal was Just the same as
lt was. N" intended to give me tplaln-
TIM all the time | wanted. and that any
time that | found my customer 10 come
with him with the money, they should
have the deed, and he and | would set
tie according TO the agreement as W.
mad agreed" The defendant claims
that, at the expiration of the two weeks
that he had extended the time. he again
extended the time for one week
one OF the first parties TO whom the
PLAINTIFF showed the lot was the firm of
Esty Brothers, and there was a meeting
of one of the Esty brothers with the
plaintiff and defendant at the defend
ants house at which time an arrange
ment was made to give to the Estys
credit for $1,000, which was to be paid
by the price of the timber that one
hershey was to have from the lot If the
EsiSs purchased it, the plaintiff having
showed Mr. Hershey over the lot to sell
him the timber TO" the Esty Brothers
The fret of December the !fsty Broth
ers concluded not to take the lot, and
the pldlutiH was so Informed. After
wards defendant sold the lot to Mr.
Hershey for S2S00 The plaintiff claims
that Mr.. Hershey promised him to pun
chase the lot if the EstY Brothers did
not purchase it. This is denied by Her
sheN.
It was admitted that the first time the
plaintiff showed the lot to Hershey II
was to sell him the standing timber for
the EstY Brothers, If they purchased il
lie other time, when the plaintiff claims
tershey promised to purchase It il
i1StN Brothers did not. was when he
was showing the lot to Mr.. Fleming. for
whom the plaintiff was at times en-
ployed' so that Fleming could make a
| contract to cut the timber II Hershey
| purchased the growth of Esty Brothers
| The circumstances and conduct OF tue
| parties tend strongly to support the
| defendants contention that the option
| Of the plaintiff expired before Dee9 and
! that Hershey purchased the lot of the
defendant without any act or influence
| of the plaintiff and the letter or plain
tiff, written by Rich who was his agent
assisting him in the sales OF tile lot and
which letter the plaintiff practically ad-
mlts, was written with his knowledge
ana ken having testified that he was
with the plaintiff when the option was
extended for an indefinite period, it be-
ing admitted that there was no agree
ment to extend the option after tha
date of the letter. shows conclusivelv
that the defendants version of the
transaction is the true one. The letter
contains the following significant Ian
guage. Now Will you consider that We
are your agents in this deal and allow
us more time to land a purchaser for
lot No. live have some parties VINO
have promised to look the lot over
mot that Mr. Hershey had agreed to
purchase III but it is rather dirty get
ting around i'm the woods, If YOU will
still let us have an option we can get
some one to buy soon" 1t being adj
mitted that the option was not extended
after that letter. there can be but one
conclusion drawn from the evidence,
and that IS, that the plaintiff was not
acting as the agent of the defendant at
the time of the sale by the defendant
to Hershey of lot No. IL. and not en-
titled to a commission upon the sale of
the lot, which sale was made nearly a
month after the date of the letter The
jury must have failed to give the evi-
denee sustaining the contention of the
for if they had given II such weight nut
one conclusion could properly have been
reached
Motion sustained. New trial granted.