Havner v. Miller

191 Iowa 865
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 25, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 Iowa 865 (Havner v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Havner v. Miller, 191 Iowa 865 (iowa 1921).

Opinion

Arthur, J.

In the latter part of May, 1919, plaintiff, who desired to purchase land, was taken by interveners, Bagley and McGregor, real estate agents, to Jones and -Cedar Counties, to look at farms in the vicinity of Mechaniesville. Among other [866]*866lands shown plaintiff was the Carl Káuffman farm of 355 acres. Kauffman lived in the state of 'Washington. This farm had been listed the previous year with Bagley, but he did not have it listed at the time it was shown to Havner. The farm suited Havner, and he became interested in its purchase. After looking at the Kauffman farm, Bagley and McGregor and Havner went to Mechanicsville, and there met Miller. Bagley introduced Miller to Havner. Miller was a real estate agent, located at Mechanicsville. The Kauffman farm was spoken of. Miller had had the farm listed at one time, but he did not have it at that time. The deal started with no one acting as agent to sell the Kauffman land. Miller and Bagley suggested that an offer be sent by Havner to Kauffman for the purchase of the land, and stated that the outside price on the farm was $225 per acre. Havner told them that he did not want to do that; that he thought it better to send someone out to see Kauffman; that a better deal could be made by having someone go out to see Kauffman than by sending an offer. Havner proposed that he would pay the expenses of the trip, if the farm was not secured, and said that, if it was purchased, he expected the seller to pay the usual 2 per cent'Commission, and was willing that the agents have that. Havner at that time expressly stated that he would not "stand for any price springing.” Bagley and McGregor and Miller then had a talk apart from Havner, and reported to Havner that Miller would go out to see Kauffman. Havner then drew up a proposed contract, with the name of an employee, W. S. Ellis, as purchaser, on the basis of $225 per acre, and drew his check for $1,000, and told them that whoever went was to make the best deal he could with Kauffman. Havner explained at the time that Ellis would have no interest in the deal; that he placed his name in the proposal simply as a matter of convenience. Miller took the proposed contract made out by Havner, the $1,000 check made by Havner, and a note for $4,000 executed by Havner, and went to Kauffman’s home in the state of Washington. He interviewed Kauffman. Miller wired Havner:

"To my surprise other parties had sent telegram to him but will close deal if get all cash above $42,000 now on place March 1st. Make your own terms. Answer. ’ ’

[867]*867To which Havner wired answer:

“Will pay all cash March 1st above $42,000 mortgage. You are authorized to change contract accordance to this message.”

Also, Havner wired Miller, asking what commission Kauff-man was paying, and Miller answered that Kauffman was paying 2 per cent; and that, as the down payment was to be cash, the check and note were being returned.

Under the original proposed contract, and as modified by making cash down payment, instead of by note, the ostensible •purchase price for which Kauffman was selling was $75,875, being $225 per acre. However, at the same time these contracts were signed, Miller and Kauffman entered into a contract, fixing the real purchase price at $215 per acre, and 2 per cent commission, to be paid on that basis, and providing that Miller should receive the excess price of $10 per acre, in addition to 2 per cent commission. At the same time, Miller wired Bagley:

“Keceived wire, can get but two per cent. Can you and McGregor go three ways ? ’ ’

Miller returned to Mechanicsville, and the papers executed in Washington were sent to the Monticello State Bank, where Havner was to make the down payment of $5,000, less an agreed, discount of $200. After Havner made the payment at the bank, the $1,400 commission was drawn out and divided, Miller, Bag-ley, and McGregor, after some dispute, taking shares agreed upon. Miller concealed from Havner and Bagley and Mc-Gregor the arrangement whereby he was to receive $3,550 out of the purchase price that'Havner was paying, which he was to receive at the completion of the transfer on March 1st.

When Havner, about March 1, 1920, was arranging1 for the completion of the transfer, he discovered for the first time the existence of the secret agreement whereby $3,550 of the purchase price was to go to Miller. Kauffman’s deed was at the Monticello bank, with directions to deliver upon receipt of the full purchase price, and Kauffman instructed the bank to pay Miller the $3,550 out of this fund. Havner completed the purchase, and brought this action to recover the $3,550 which he claimed to be unlawful profit about to go to Miller, and enjoined the bank from paying same to Miller, whom he alleged to be insolvent and financially irresponsible. Plaintiff’s posi[868]*868tion is that Miller was acting for him in undertaking the purchase of the Kauffman farm, and in going to interview Kauff-man to arrange such purchase; that Miller could not lawfully, while negotiating the purchase of the farm for plaintiff, by secret agreement with Kauffman arrange that $10 per acre be added to the price Kauffman was willing to take for the land, and obtain and hold the $10 per acre which was added to the purchase price and paid by plaintiff in performance of his contract with Kauffman; and that he (plaintiff) is entitled to recover the excess amount of $3,550 required to be paid under the contract by the secret agreement made by Miller with Kauff-man while negotiating the purchase of the Kauffman farm.

Defendant Miller’s position was that he was not acting as the agent of Havner in purchasing the farm, but was, in fact, the agent for Kauffman, the seller of the farm; and that this fact was known to Havner; that he acted in good faith in submitting to Kauffman the written offer made by Havner of $225 per acre; and that he was not bound to advise Havner of the contract between himself and Kauffman, as he was Kauffman’s agent, and not Havner’s.

There is no issue between interveners, Bagley and Mc-Gregor, and Havner. Interveners’ claim upon the fund in controversy is that, if it shall be determined that defendant Miller is entitled to the fund, interveners, by reason of an agreement between them and Miller, are entitled to share in the fund, as a part of the commission for the sale of the land.

The decision of the case hinges upon whether Miller was the agent of Havner or of Kauffman in the transaction involved, and is a fact issue, to be determined from the evidence. We have the testimony before us of all the actors except Kauffman. What occurred that was not reduced to writing between Miller and Kauffman we are not informed.

Bagley and McGregor were showing to Havner farms listed with them, and in their travels viewed the Kauffman farm, which was not listed with either of them. The farm had been listed with Bagley in 1918, and he told Havner that Kauffman was then holding it at $225 an acre. The-farm had never been listed with McGregor. The farm suited Havner, and he wanted to buy it. On going into Mechaniesville, the party, Bagley, Me-[869]*869Gregor, and Havner, clianced to meet Miller. At one time, Miller had owned the Kauffman farm; and, after he had sold it, it was listed with him for sale for a time, but he did not then have it listed. As a witness, Miller testified:

"When I met these men, the latter part of May, 1919, I did not have the Kauffman farm listed.”

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

Related

Menzel v. Morse
362 N.W.2d 465 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1985)
Loots v. Knoke
228 N.W. 45 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 Iowa 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/havner-v-miller-iowa-1921.