Court Opinion

ID: 9833618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:53:30.361113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.209459
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant moves the court for additional findings of fact. In response to said motion, we find that in November, 1918, the owner of the land listed it with appellant and a,greed to pay him a commission of 20 cents per acre in the event of a sale; that such listing with Mann was by the owner upon his own initiative, and not at the solicitation of Mann. Mann ,did not negotiate with the purchasers until after the owner had listed the land with him in person. We are further requested to find that Mann sold the land under his contract with the owner, that he was the owner’s agent when the sale was negotiated, and that the owner did not know the appellee in the sale made -by Mann. We cannot find these facts as stated. As we understand the law, Mann could not, during the existence of his contract with appellee, in virtue of which he agreed to act as a sub-agent, make a new and independent contract with the owner to sell on his own account without first notifying the appellee and terminating the relationship of agent and sub-agent. Kohn v. Jacobs, 4 Misc. Rep. 265, 23 N. T. Supp. 1033; Madler v. Pozorski, 124 Wis. 477, 102 N. W. 892.
We further'find that appellee had no exclusive agency from the owner to sell the land. In the motion for rehearing the same questions are presented which have been considered in disposing of the matter originally. The appellant insists that, since appellee could not have sold the lands to Whaley & Jones, and because the record does not show that Mann had gained any advantage over appellee, or had derived any profit or benefit by virtue of the contract of subagency, he should not be required to divide the commissions with appellee. We think these facts have been shown, or at least are infer-able from the record. Under the contract appellee had the right to expect that the sale would be made to Whaley & Jones by his subagent, and for their mutual benefit. With this expectation he would naturally make no effort to dispose of them to any other purchaser. If Mann had informed him of the fact that he had accepted an agency directly from the owner, and had abrogated the contract of subagency, he would be in a position 'to contend that no injustice had been done appellee; and this is the turning point of the case.
We think the controversy has been correctly and justly disposed of, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.