Weisels-Gerhart Real Estate Co. v. Wainwright

105 S.W. 1096, 127 Mo. App. 514, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 528
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 3, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 S.W. 1096 (Weisels-Gerhart Real Estate Co. v. Wainwright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weisels-Gerhart Real Estate Co. v. Wainwright, 105 S.W. 1096, 127 Mo. App. 514, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 528 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinion

BLAND, P. J.

(after stating the facts).—Appellant’s cablegram of November twenty-seventh was not a notice to Wainwright, that the property had been sold on the terms authorized by him; on the. contrary, it was notice that, a proposition had been made to purchase the property at the price authorized, but on terms materially different from those Wainwright had authorized appellant to sell for, and a request to him to accept the proposition as wired. The terms for which appellant was authorized to sell the property were, $35,000 cash, balance in five years at 4 1-2 per cent interest per annum, purchaser to pay taxes for 1906. The terms of the cablegram were $20,000 cash, $10,000 in two years, $10,000 in three years, $10,000 in four years, and $30,000 in five years; and the fact that on the following Monday a written contract was entered into, on the terms authorized, of which Wainwright had no notice, did not affect his right to revoke appellant’s [519]*519agency, which right he had for the reason appellant did not have, or claim to have, the exclusive agency for the sale of the property (Geo. B. Loving Co. v. Hesperian Cattle Co., 176 Mo. 330, 75 S. W. 1095; Wallace & Eves v. Figone, 107 Mo. App. 366-7, 81 S. W. 492), and there is no evidence that Wainwright had any intimation that the contract had been entered into on November twenty-seventh, between appellant, as his agent, and Pfeiífér, until after he had accepted the proposition wired him by F. H. Gerhart, and is therefore not liable to appellant for a commission for effecting the contract of sale to Pfeiffer. [Johnson Bros. v. Wright, 121 Iowa 61.]

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Bayfield v. Radford
404 S.W.2d 423 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 S.W. 1096, 127 Mo. App. 514, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weisels-gerhart-real-estate-co-v-wainwright-moctapp-1907.