Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Ark. 56

Boysen v. Robertson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 4, 1902

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1902-01-04

Hance N. Hutton, Judge. This was a contract of sale, if any at all, and the agent was allowed only a reasonable amount for making it. 15 S. W. 912; Bapalje, Beal Estate Brokers, 77. An agent who is authorized to sell for a fixed price and sells for a higher price must account for the excess. 1 G-ilm. (111.) 269; 55 111. 288; 13 La. An. 18; 36 Barb. 349; 31 111. 404; 62 Ind. 255; 27 111. App. 244. Under the statute of frauds a sufficient writing is necessary. 45 Ark. 28.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Beversed · Decided 1902-01-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1925

8 state decisions

70190219101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Battle, J.

¶1Mrs. Anna A. Jones was the owner of 3852.73 acres in Lee county, in this state. She authorized J. T. Robertson, a real estate broker, to sell the same at “three dollars per acre net to her." For about two years Robertson had control of the lands, rented thorn, paid taxes on them, and endeavored to sell. In March, 1896, A. Boysen authorized J. Gr. Thweatt to purchase the land, and Robertson sold the land to Thweatt for Boysen, Thweatt, as such agent, agreeing to pay Mrs.. Jones three dollars an acre, and to Robertson fifty cents an acre as a compensation for selling. While this trade was pending, Boys-en ¡mrehased the land from Mrs. Jones at four dollars an acre, and paid her for it, and received a deed from her for the same. Boysen refusing to pay the fifty cents an acre, Robertson brought this action against him for the same, and recovered judgment for $1,506.40, and he appealed.

¶2Was Robertson entitled to a judgment against Boysen for any amount? That depends upon his contract with Mrs. Jones in respect to the sale of the land. The evidence does not show what compensation he was to receive for selling. But he says he was authorized to sell the land at three dollars per acre net to her, and that he was entitled to all he could get for the land exceeding that amount. He is in error. The contract meant that the land must bring to Mrs. Jones three dollars per acre over and above all expenses and deductions. Turnley v. Michael, 15 S. W. Rep. 912. This was only a limitation ripon his power to sell. It was still his duty to sell the land for the highest price obtainable, and to account to Mrs. Jones for the proceeds, less a compensation not greater than the excess of the purchase money over three dollars per acre net, and at the same time not exceeding a reasonable compensation. The whole amount for which he sold the land was due to and recoverable by Mrs. Jones. If he had collected it, he might have reserved out of it what his principal was owing him on account of the sale. But the contract made by him was never completed. Mrs. Jones sold the land to Boysen for four dollars per acre, collected the purchase money, and conveyed the land to the purchaser. She and Boysen had the right to do so, and thereby relieve Boysen from the contract made by their respective agents. But this did not relieve them from any liability for compensation they were severally liable to their respective agents for services rendered.

¶3The judgment of the‘circuit court is therefore reversed, and final judgment is rendered here in favor of the defendant.

Bunn, C. J., dissents.
/70/ark/56 · .json · Public domain