Stoutenburgh v. Evans

Supreme Court of Iowa

Stoutenburgh v. Evans

120 N.W. 59, 142 Iowa 239

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedMarch 11, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 N.W. 59 (Stoutenburgh v. Evans) 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

Stoutenburgh v. Evans, 120 N.W. 59, 142 Iowa 239 (iowa 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Ladd, J.

The petition alleged: That defendants “employed the plaintiff to sell and dispose of the stock of the Economy Coal Company to Heaps & Reynolds for the sum of $40,000 to be paid as hereafter provided: $5,000 to be allowed by defendants for a certain tophouse and works belonging to said Heaps & Reynolds; balance was to [240]*240be paid one-half down and the remainder to be paid in one year with interest thereon at 6 percent.” That on May 28, 1907, plaintiff made the “sale to said Heaps & Reynolds upon the terms which defendant requested plaintiff to secure, $10 of which was paid to hand and the balance upon the terms above set out.” That plaintiff reported said sale to defendants and tendered to them the said $10, but defendants refused to carry out the contract. These allegations are put in issue by the answer, and it is manifest that recovery of commission for services rendered must be predicated upon the theory that an actual sale was made on the terms mentioned. The evidence failed to show that Heaps & Reynolds were able to make the purchase, but this was not essential in a case where the agent is employed to effect a sale on specified terms to designated persons. To bind the principal, however, the sale must have been on such terms only. According to the petition and evidence of plaintiff the sum of $17,500 was to be paid “down,” and he was without authority to accept so small an amount as $10. In receiving it with merely a promise to pay more later, plaintiff exceeded his authority, and there was no sale such as under his own version of the transaction he was empowered to make. See Ormsby v. Graham, 123 Iowa, 202, 214; Naylor v. Butcher, 93 Iowa, 340; Felts v. Butcher, 93 Iowa, 414; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 (42 N. E. 134, 49 Am. St. 162); Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 (20 N. E. 174, 12 Am. St. 587). There having been no sale, the commission for making it was not earned. — Reversed.

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

Ladd, J.

The petition alleged: That defendants “employed the plaintiff to sell and dispose of the stock of the Economy Coal Company to Heaps & Reynolds for the sum of $40,000 to be paid as hereafter provided: $5,000 to be allowed by defendants for a certain tophouse and works belonging to said Heaps & Reynolds; balance was to [240]*240be paid one-half down and the remainder to be paid in one year with interest thereon at 6 percent.” That on May 28, 1907, plaintiff made the “sale to said Heaps & Reynolds upon the terms which defendant requested plaintiff to secure, $10 of which was paid to hand and the balance upon the terms above set out.” That plaintiff reported said sale to defendants and tendered to them the said $10, but defendants refused to carry out the contract. These allegations are put in issue by the answer, and it is manifest that recovery of commission for services rendered must be predicated upon the theory that an actual sale was made on the terms mentioned. The evidence failed to show that Heaps & Reynolds were able to make the purchase, but this was not essential in a case where the agent is employed to effect a sale on specified terms to designated persons. To bind the principal, however, the sale must have been on such terms only. According to the petition and evidence of plaintiff the sum of $17,500 was to be paid “down,” and he was without authority to accept so small an amount as $10. In receiving it with merely a promise to pay more later, plaintiff exceeded his authority, and there was no sale such as under his own version of the transaction he was empowered to make. See Ormsby v. Graham, 123 Iowa, 202, 214; Naylor v. Butcher, 93 Iowa, 340; Felts v. Butcher, 93 Iowa, 414; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 (42 N. E. 134, 49 Am. St. 162); Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 (20 N. E. 174, 12 Am. St. 587). There having been no sale, the commission for making it was not earned. — Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.W. 59, 142 Iowa 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoutenburgh-v-evans-iowa-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack