Neal v. Lehman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Neal v. Lehman

34 S.W. 153, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 1896 Tex. App. LEXIS 1

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 29, 1896

DocketNo. 942.

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 34 S.W. 153 (Neal v. Lehman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neal v. Lehman, 34 S.W. 153, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 1896 Tex. App. LEXIS 1 (Tex. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinions

GARRETT, Chief Justice.

Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant in the County Court of Grimes County for $500 as commissions for the sale of land. The contract of employment to sell was made in March, 1894, and, as first made, appellant agreed with appellee to pay him $500 if he would find a purchaser for the land at $13,000, there being no limit as to the time within which the purchaser should'be found.’ Appellee sometime in April induced one Charles Hollé to look at the land. Hollé was willing to buy it if he could sell his own farm. Appellee informed appellant that Hollé wanted to buy and gave him his name. Appellant then told appellee that if he wanted to'earn his commissions, the sale must be completed by June 1, as he desired to improve the land if not sold by that time. Ho sale was effected by June 1, and the appellant made improvements to the value of about $500. On July 27, Hollé went to the appellant in person and bought the land for $13,500.

Appellee was the agent of appellant to 'sell the land. ’ His authority to sell could be revoked at any time by the appellant. His interest in the commissions to be earned was not sufficient to prevent'the revocation. Mechem on Agency, sections 204 and 207. The limitation of the agency to June 1 was a revocation of the agency from that time. Appellant would be liable for the commissions if the revocation was made in bad faith and as a mere device to escape the payment thereof. There is nothing in the action of the appellant limiting the authority of the appellee to sell to June 1 to indicate a want of good faith. A reasonable time was left for the completion of the sale, even if the negotiations had been approaching success, which was not the case. These had progressed no further than that Hollé would buy if he could sell his farm. Appellee is not entitled to the commission from the fact that a sale of the land was finally made by the appellant to the person with whom he had negotiated and to whose attention he had brought the property. His employment, as limited, was to sell by June 1; this he did not do; and when his employment ceased, there was little prospect of a sale. Hearly two months afterwards negotiations were reopened by the purchaser with the appellant and the purchase effected. Appellee, by the terms of his employment, had not earned the commissions, and there was nothing to show a want of good faith on the part of appellant in *463 revoking Ms authority, or that the revocation was made as a device to -escape the payment of commissions. In such case there is no reason why the appellant might not afterwards sell to the same customer. Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y., 378.

Delivered January 29, 1896.

The judgment of the court below will be reversed and judgment here rendered in favor of the appellant.

Reversed and rendered.

Delivered November 7, 1895.

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

GARRETT, Chief Justice.

Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant in the County Court of Grimes County for $500 as commissions for the sale of land. The contract of employment to sell was made in March, 1894, and, as first made, appellant agreed with appellee to pay him $500 if he would find a purchaser for the land at $13,000, there being no limit as to the time within which the purchaser should'be found.’ Appellee sometime in April induced one Charles Hollé to look at the land. Hollé was willing to buy it if he could sell his own farm. Appellee informed appellant that Hollé wanted to buy and gave him his name. Appellant then told appellee that if he wanted to'earn his commissions, the sale must be completed by June 1, as he desired to improve the land if not sold by that time. Ho sale was effected by June 1, and the appellant made improvements to the value of about $500. On July 27, Hollé went to the appellant in person and bought the land for $13,500.

Appellee was the agent of appellant to 'sell the land. ’ His authority to sell could be revoked at any time by the appellant. His interest in the commissions to be earned was not sufficient to prevent'the revocation. Mechem on Agency, sections 204 and 207. The limitation of the agency to June 1 was a revocation of the agency from that time. Appellant would be liable for the commissions if the revocation was made in bad faith and as a mere device to escape the payment thereof. There is nothing in the action of the appellant limiting the authority of the appellee to sell to June 1 to indicate a want of good faith. A reasonable time was left for the completion of the sale, even if the negotiations had been approaching success, which was not the case. These had progressed no further than that Hollé would buy if he could sell his farm. Appellee is not entitled to the commission from the fact that a sale of the land was finally made by the appellant to the person with whom he had negotiated and to whose attention he had brought the property. His employment, as limited, was to sell by June 1; this he did not do; and when his employment ceased, there was little prospect of a sale. Hearly two months afterwards negotiations were reopened by the purchaser with the appellant and the purchase effected. Appellee, by the terms of his employment, had not earned the commissions, and there was nothing to show a want of good faith on the part of appellant in *463 revoking Ms authority, or that the revocation was made as a device to -escape the payment of commissions. In such case there is no reason why the appellant might not afterwards sell to the same customer. Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y., 378.

Delivered January 29, 1896.

The judgment of the court below will be reversed and judgment here rendered in favor of the appellant.

Reversed and rendered.

Delivered November 7, 1895.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.W. 153, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 1896 Tex. App. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-lehman-texapp-1896.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack