Case Name: Mary Sampson, Appellee, v. Sanfrid Harmstrom et al., Appellants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1914-11-30
Citations: 190 Ill. App. 12
Docket Number: Gen. No. 20,299
Parties: Mary Sampson, Appellee, v. Sanfrid Harmstrom et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 190
Pages: 12–13

Head Matter:
Mary Sampson, Appellee, v. Sanfrid Harmstrom et al., Appellants.
Gen. No. 20,299.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Exchange of property, § 10 —when party not entitled to rescission. Where a woman, after making loans through a real estate and loan broker, entered into a contract with the broker for an exchange of real estate and gave her note secured by mortgage for the difference in the value of the properties and subsequently became in arrears in making payments, whereupon the broker required her to execute to him a quitclaim deed as an equitable mortgage, held there was no fiduciary relation existing between the parties at the time the contract was made or the deed was given nor any ground for rescinding the same in equity.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Opinion filed November 30, 1914.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
Statement of the Case.
Bill by Mary Sampson against Sanfrid Harmstrom and Albdrt Harmstrom to rescind a transaction between the complainant and defendant Sanfrid Harmstrom on the ground that a fiduciary relation existed between said parties and that complainant was induced to enter into the transaction through his false and fraudulent representations. From a decree granting the relief prayed, defendants appeal.
James G. Skinner and C. H. Sippel, for appellants.
Charles J. O’Connor, R. Harold O’Connor and Edward C. Kesler, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same* topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Baker
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Brokers, § 6 —relation with person maJcing loan. Where a mortgage hanker or dealer in securities sells to a person a note secured by a mortgage, the buyer is an investor, and the relation growing out of the transaction is that of banker and customer or seller and buyer and not a fiduciary or trust relation."
3. Brokers, § 6*—when fiduciary relation created. When a person intrusts money to another to invest for him ánd the person who is intrusted with the money selects the security and makes the investment, a trust or fiduciary relation is created.
4. Brokers, § 6*—when fiduciary relation not created. The fact that a person buying a note from a loan broker paid for it with money which the broker had collected for him, and that the note and interest coupons were payable at his office and the interest was paid there and turned over to the buyer of the note, held not to create a trust or fiduciary relation between them.
5. Brokers, § 6*—when not a general agent. An owner by listing lots with a real estate agent for sale does not make the agent the owner's general agent.