Court Opinion

ID: 9885781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:29:14.49896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:57.725344
License: Public Domain

Wootten, J.,

dissented upon the ground that no evidence in his opinion, had been adducedin the caseto show that Mr. Bright had any authority whatever to sigu the instrument in question as the agent of the defendant, and without some proof of that fact, which was utterly denied by the defendant, it could not bind the defendant, and was consequently not admissible in evidence.
After the reading of it in evidence, it was proved that the defendant had since sold the house to another person for $2900, with a cash payment of $2000 on the day of sale.
The evidence on behalf of the defendant by one witness was that in all the offers made by the defendant to sell the house, he had required the payment of one-half of the purchase money in cash on the day of sale, and *440by another witness that immediately after he refused to comply with the contract made by Bright for the sale of it to the plaintiff, the parties themselves, the plaintiff and defendant, entered into a verbal agreement, the plaintiff to buy and the defendant to sell it to him, for the same price, $2800, but upon different terms of payment, with which however, the plaintiff soon failed to comply, and which agreement was consequently never executed.

The Court, Gilpin C. J., charged the jury.

Our statute of frauds among other things, provides that no action shall be brought upon any contract or sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them,. unless the same shall be reduced to writing, or some memorandum, or note thereof shall be signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized. But the statute does not require that the appointment or authority of the agent in such a case shall be in writing, for it may be proved by paroi, or that it was verbal only; and if the jury were satisfied from the evidence, that the agency and authority of Mr. Bright to sell the house for the defendant to the plaintiff for the price and on the terms stated in the contract or instrument signed by him and dated November 29th 1865, was so conferred upon him by the defendant, it would be sufficient to constitute him his lawful agent for that purpose, and the defendant would be bound by it. Although he was a broker or general agent engaged in the business of selling real estate, as such, at that time in the city of Wilmington, still, if the agency and authority to sell the property was so conferred upon him by the defendant, he would have been only his special agent for the purpose, or his agent merely for that special purpose, and if in so doing, he exceeded the authority conferred upon him by the defendant for the purpose in any essential particular, the defendant would not be bound by it, and might lawfully refuse to comply with the terms, of it, or to execute a deed in pur*441suance of it. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the plaintiff who affirms and relies upon the sufficiency of his agency and authority to sell the house to him for the defendant upon the terms stipulated, to prove to the satisfaction of the jury, that he had direct and sufficient of verbal authority, at least, from the defendant, not only to enter into such a written contract for the sale of the property to the plaintiff, as the agent of the defendant, but also to sign and execute such a written contract of sale of it to him, as the agent of the defendant. For if his authority simply was to negotiate the sale of it to the plaintiff for the defendant on the terms stated, or any other terms indicated, or assented to by the latter, without having any specific authority, verbal or otherwise, from him to reduce it to writing and to sign and conclude it as a complete and absolute contract of sale between the parties in regard to the matter, the defendant would not be bound by it, and the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover. It would be for the jury, however, to determine from all the evidence before them in the case, whether he had, or had not, direct authority, verbal or otherwise, as before stated, to make, reduce to writing and sign such a contract of sale of the property between the parties, as the agent of the defendant. If he had, then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover whatever damages he had sustained by the refusal of the defendant to comply with it.
The plaintiff had a verdict for $200.