Clark v. Allen

Citations

• 125 Cal. 276
• 57 P. 985
• 1899 Cal. LEXIS 847

Syllabus

<p>Compensation op Broker—Exchange op Lands—Bringing Parties Together—Double Employment.—A broker will not be allowed to act as agent of both parties, to a contract for the sale and ■purchase of real estate, and an agreement for compensation from both of them will not be recognized by the courts; but this rule has no application where the broker does not act as an agent, or represent conflicting interests, but acts- merely as a middleman to bring the parties to an exchange of lands together, and has nothing whatever to do with the trade between them. In such case, there is nothing in the relation of the parties to render the broker obnoxious to the charge of double employment; and he may receive compensation from both of the parties, if both agree to pay him.</p> <p>In—Question of Fact—Conflicting Evidence—Obdeb Granting New Trial,—The question whether the broker was merely a middleman, or was an agent of both parties, is one of fact to be determined by the trial court; and where there is conflicting evidence, from which the court might find either way, an order granting a new trial after rendering judgment in favor of the claim of the broker for compensation from one party, after having received compensation from the other party, if the new trial appears to have been granted for insufficiency of the evidence, will not be disturbed upon appeal.</p> <p>Id.—Pleading—Contract to Make a “Deal”—Procurement of Purchaser—Variance—A complaint alleging that under a contract with the defendant to make a “deal” for him respecting a certain piece of property, the plaintiffs procured a purchaser able and willing to purchase the land, is not at material variance with proof showing an exchange of lands, rather than a purchase, especially where the evidence of the exchange was received without objection.</p>