Ahern v. Baker

24 N.W. 341, 34 Minn. 98, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 171
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 24, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 24 N.W. 341 (Ahern v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ahern v. Baker, 24 N.W. 341, 34 Minn. 98, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 171 (Mich. 1885).

Opinion

Vanderburgh, J.

The defendant, on the ninth day of September, 1884, specially authorized one Wheeler, as his agent, to sell the real [99]*99property in controversy, and to execute a contract for the sale of the same. He in like manner on the same day empowered one Fair-child to sell the same land, the authority of the agent in each instance being limited to the particular transaction named. On the same day, Wheeler effected a sale of the land, which was consummated by a conveyance. Subsequently, on the tenth day of September, Fairchild, as agent for defendant, and having no notice of the previous sale made by Wheeler, also contracted to sell the same land to this plaintiff, who, upon defendant’s refusal to perform on his part, brings this action for damages for breach of the contract.

This is a case of special agency, and there is nothing in the case going to show that the plaintiff would be estopped from setting up a revocation of the agency prior to the sale by Fairchild. A revocation may be shown by the death of the principal, the destruction of the subject-matter, or the determination of his estate by a sale, as well as by express notice. The plaintiff had a right to employ several agents, and the act of one in making a sale would preclude the others without any notice, unless the nature of his contract with them required it. In dealing with the agent the plaintiff took the risk of the revocation of his agency. 1 Pars. Cont. 71.*

Order affirmed, and case remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dindo v. Cappelletti
77 A.2d 840 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1951)
Des Rivieres v. Sullivan
142 N.E. 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
William Weisman Realty Co. v. Cohen
195 N.W. 898 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1923)
Wetmore v. Hudson
183 N.W. 672 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1921)
Elkhorn Consolidated Coal & Coke Co. v. Eaton, Rhodes & Co.
173 S.W. 798 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1915)
Wallace v. Figone
81 S.W. 492 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
White & Hoskins v. Benton
96 N.W. 876 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Wong Kwai v. Dominis
13 Haw. 471 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1901)
Douville v. Comstock
69 N.W. 79 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Fletcher Bros. v. Nelson
69 N.W. 53 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Hill v. Jebb
18 S.W. 1047 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.W. 341, 34 Minn. 98, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahern-v-baker-minn-1885.