Court Opinion

ID: 9828692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:37:42.998342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.887115
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant urges that we should have reversed the judgment below and here rendered judgment for him, because certain evidence tends to show that the appellee in talking to Mr. Estes, the party with whom appellee claims he made the deal for appellant, made use of certain statements. The testimony is as follows, appellee testifying:
“In my conversation with Mr. Estes I told him that I might get him $6,500 to boot, I thought, and maybe $7,000, but I doubted it. It was Mrs. Tinsley who made the- proposition of $6,500 or $7,000 to boot between the two places. I told Mr. Estes that I could get him $6,500 or $7,000 although Mr. Colvin had instructed me to try to trade for $5,000 because he told me that he would look at the place for $6,500. * * *
“I did not make that proposition of $5,000 to boot.' I said, T think I can get you $6,500 to boot, or maybe $7,000.’ Although he (Col-*641vin) had instructed me to do that, I tried to make a trade that would be more advantageous ■to the buyer. * * *
“That offer of Mr. Colvin’s of $5,000 to boot was subject to bis approval of the inside of the bouse, the same as the $6,500 offer. He says, T believe be will do that.’ When I first called Estes, I told him that I thought I could get him $6,500 o.r $7,000„but I didn’t think I could get the $7,000, but that I would if I could. I considered the property very cheap at that price.”
Appellant urges that the law requires the utmost good faith on the part of agent to represent the best interest of his principal, and, where’ it is shown that he failed so to do, he cannot recover for his services. He cites such cases as Alford v. Creagh, by the Court of Appeals of Alabama, 7 Ala. App. 358, 62 So. 254, where the court says:
“The law requires that a real estate agent, employed to sell land, must act in entire good faith and in the interest of his employer. Henderson v. Vincent, 84 Ala. 101, 4 So. 180. To this end he must exact from the purchaser the price, the terms, and conditions of sale which his employer .has fixed. 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. Eaw (2d Ed.) p. 902. If he fails to do this, but induces the prospective purchaser to believe that the property can be bought for less, he fails to discharge that duty to his principal that good faith demands. Such conduct on the broker’s part is well calculated to lead the purchaser to stand out and thereby either force from the seller a lower price than that fixed or delay the sale, even if he finally buys at the price fixed, both detrimental to the. interest of the seller.”
He also cites Surety Co. v. McCutcheon, 270 S. W. 1062, in which Chief Justice Conner of this court says:
“ ‘The relation of principal and agent is fiduciary, requiring the most perfect loyalty and the utmost good faith, the strictest integrity, and the fairest dealing on the part of the agent to his principal.’ ”
We recognize the rule to be as laid down in these two cases, but for reasons hereinafter given we do not think the testimony of Chadwick, herein quoted, necessarily debars him from a recovery In the first place, there is evidence tending to show that Chadwick was representing both the buyer and seller in the negotiations, and that such fact was known to Colvin, and impliedly, at least, with his consent. The evidence further shows a Mrs. Tinsley had owned the property subsequently purchased by Colvin, and she had indicated that she might take $7,000 difference between her property and certain property owned by Colvin, and Colvin, upon such fact being reported to him, said he might give $6,500 “to boot.” Subsequently Mrs. Tinsley sold the place to Estes, and Chadwick explains his reason for saying to Estes that he thought he could get a $6,500 to boot offer, and maybe a $7,000. He testified he knew what Estes had paid for the place, and he felt he would expect to make something on the deal before he would trade with appellant. Under these circumstances, we cannot say as a matter of law that appellee as agent showed such a lack of good .faith towards appellant as would debar him from a recovery. With the knowledge and consent of both parties to a deal, a realtor or broker may represent both parties, and, as before stated, there is some evidence in the record tending to show that there was a dual agency on the part of appellee which was known to appellant.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.