Court Opinion

ID: 9533361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:31:01.54717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:01.575341
License: Public Domain

*316MR. JUSTICE ADAIR:
I dissent.
The instrument designated “Appointment of Agent” between the real estate agent, E. F. Carnell, and signed by Otto and Frank Mattuschek is simply a thirty day listing agreement. It does not constitute a power of attorney. It does not authorize the real estate agent to execute or deliver in the name of the Mattuseheks any deed of conveyance or any contract for sale and purchase. It is purely and simply an agreement between the real estate agent and the owners of the 3,540 acre ranch. Should the Mattuseheks wrongfully fail to perform their part of the agreement, the only loss to the real estate agent would be his commission of $1,000 to become due him upon a sale by the Mattuseheks of their property. Such would be the extent of the real estate agent’s damage and it could be fully satisfied by the payment of money so that the extraordinary remedy of specific performance would neither be authorized nor available.
The Mattuseheks’ listing agreement was with the real estate agent Carnell and not with Carnell’s prospective purchaser for the property, and in my opinion Carnell’s prospective purchaser, E. E. Ward, has no right of action for specific performance against the Mattuseheks to compel them by a court decree to make an involuntary conveyance to him of their ranch and holdings.
In my opinion, the judgment of the district court w'as correct and it should be affirmed.