Court Opinion

ID: 9864488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:28:09.49901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:46.237045
License: Public Domain

*115THE COURT.
In respondent’s petition for a rehearing it is urged that “the word 1 encumbrance' used in the listing contract . . . was understood by Gulart to mean a mortgage, and that plaintiff was led so to believe by defendant’s statements made at the time such contract was executed. It is argued that because the defendant had so misled the plaintiff the latter became entitled to a commission when the Sequerias agreed to purchase the property subject to such mortgage. Counsel, however, overlook the fact that the plaintiff alleged and the court found, on sufficient evidence introduced by plaintiff, that at the time the listing contract was executed “the legal title to said premises was . . . vested in F. T. Freitas and V. T. Freitas, subject to an agreement of purchase and sale whereby said F. T. Freitas and V. T. Freitas agreed to sell said premises to defendant . . . and that at all times said defendant owed the sum of $17,000.00 or thereabouts on the purchase price of said premises under said contract . . . and that at the time of execution of said listing it was the understanding of plaintiff and defendant . . . that in case said purchase price of $30,000.00 was not paid in cash, the purchaser, as part of said purchase price, should assume said encumbrance owing by defendant on said land to said F. T. Freitas and V. T. Freitas and pay same when due.”
It is contended that the statement in the opinion to the effect that Gulart was employed to make a sale, rather than merely to procure a purchaser to whom the defendant might sell, is in conflict with the rule announced in Merriam v. Wickersham, 141 Cal. 567, 570 [75 Pac. 180]. An examination of the transcript in that case discloses that the listing contract there under consideration was unlike the one in this case. By it the owner authorized the agent “exclusively to sell,” and “to receive a deposit” and the owner agreed to convey the property “to any purchaser found by” the agent and to pay the agreed commission “if a purchaser is found by or through” the agent. There is no inconsistency between the decision in Merriam v. Wickersham and the opinion herein or the cases cited therein.
[5] It is insisted that the allegation in the complaint, admitted by a defective denial in the answer, to the effect that Gomez was given a “general power of attorney” by defendant was sufficient to show that Gomez “had power to *116act for Azevedo in all things just as Azevedo could have done if personally present, and any act, word, or omission of Gomez which would have rendered him liable if he had been the owner will render Azevedo liable.” Plaintiff’s allegation, however, goes further than stated. It is alleged that “defendant executed and delivered to one F. P. Gomez, Jr., his certain general power of attorney, in writing, duly executed and acknowledged, in which said power of attorney he appointed said F. P. Gomez, Jr., his attorney in fact with full power and authority to convey real property and interests therein and to execute all necessary and proper transfers and conveyances thereof and to accept and receive payment therefor and, generally, to do all acts necessary or proper for the transfer of any real property or interests therein owned by defendant. ” “ Where the authority to perform specific acts is given in the power, and general words are also employed, such words are limited to the particular acts authorized. ’ ’ (Billings v. Morrow, 7 Cal. 172, 175 [68 Am. Dec. 235] ; Moore v. Gould, 151 Cal. 723, 728 [91 Pac. 616].) Authority “to do all acts necessary or proper for the transfer of any real property or interests therein owned by defendant” does not include the power to sell land or to agree upon the terms of sale thereof or to modify terms theretofore fixed by the owner, especially where another person has been given exclusive power to execute a contract of sale upon specified terms. The complaint alleges that the power of attorney was executed after the making of the listing contract and before the departure of defendant from California. From the whole of the surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the power of attorney was executed to enable Gomez to make the formal transfer of the property during the absence of defendant and not to give the former any discretion in fixing terms of sale. Gomez had no duty to perform until plaintiff made a sale in accordance with the terms of the listing contract, and no such sale was made, nor was Gomez ever informed that the Sequerias were willing to purchase the land on any other terms than those stated in their agreement with plaintiff, nor did they express such willingness to any person during the life of the listing contract.
It is contended that the answer admits that the Sequerias were “ready, able, and willing to assume the Freitas eon-*117tract.” In paragraph IX defendant positively “denies that Mike Sequeria and George Sequeria agreed or offered to purchase the premises as alleged'in the complaint,” and in paragraph XII he “alleges that the plaintiff did not at any time procure for the defendant purchaser for the real estate described in the said listing contract ready, and willing and able or ready or willing or able to purchase the real estate therein described upon the terms therein described.” No objection was made to the sufficiency of such denial and allegation and the case was tried upon the theory that they were sufficient.
The petition for a rehearing is denied.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 3, 1923.