Skip to main content
· 3/7/1914

Crawford v. Surety Investment Co.

Citations

  • 91 Kan. 748
  • 139 P. 481
  • 1914 Kan. LEXIS 114

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Real-estate Agent — In Employ of Both Vendor and Purchaser — Compensation■■—Burden on Agent to Prove Knowledge and Consent of Both Parties. A real-estate broker,- acting in -the same transaction for both vendor and purchaser, assumes a dual agency, which the law disapproves, and he can not recover compensation from either principal without showing the free consent of both; the burden rests upon him to show a full disclosure of his dual agency, and it should appear that knowledge of every circumstance connected with his employment by either was communicated to the other, in so far as the same would naturally affect his action as agent.</p> <p>2. Same — Dual Agency — Ignorance No Excuse for Fraudulent Conduct. A party will not be permitted to escape the consequences of his fraudulent conduct on the plea that he thought he was acting within his rights in a transaction contrary to sound morals and forbidden by public policy.</p> <p>3. Same — Evidence. Upon the facts stated in the opinion, held, that there was no evidence sufficient to warrant the court in submitting to the jury the question whether the dual agency was exercised by the plaintiffs with the full knowledge and free consent of the defendant.</p> <p>4. Agent’s Contract — To Sell Real Estate — When Entire— When Divisible. The general rule is that whether or not, a contract is entire or divisible is one of construction to be determined by the court according to the intention of the contracting parties as ascertained from the contract itself and upon a consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the making of it.</p> <p>5. Same — Action for Compensation Prematurely Brought. The defendant purchased a tract of land consisting of 1167 acres, and agreed with plaintiffs, in consideration of their services in procuring the purchase and upon other considerations, that plaintiffs should be entitled to one-fourth of the profits arising from a resale of the lands. 831 acres were

Judges: Porter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.