Duncan v. Hartman

Citations

• 143 Pa. 595
• 22 A. 1099
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 949

Syllabus

<p>1. An agency to “manage,” implies authority to do with the property what has previously been clone with it by the owners, or by others with their express or implied consent; or, further, to do with it what it is usual and customary to do with property of the same kind in the same locality.</p> <p>2. An agent to “diligently manage” real estate, chiefly wild mountain land, for a period of one year, has, prima facie, no authority to execute to another person an exclusive grant to quarry, take, and sell stone from the land of his principal for a term of fifteen years.</p> <p>3. Such a grant, however, may be validated by showing a previous course of dealing with the land by the owners and the agent, which give a construction by the parties themselves to the agent’s authority under his written employment, or that the owners knowingly received rents without objection.</p> <p>4. But, the burden being on the grantee to show a course of dealing which would enlarge the prima-facie powers conferred by the employment, it is the province of the jury, though the evidence be undisputed, to determine therefrom whether the grantee had met this burden to their satisfaction.</p> <p>5. The lease in this case was signed by the agent of the owners, merely as agent. But, reciting the names of the owners as his principals, and purporting to be a grant, not in his own right but as agent, if supported as stated, its informal execution would not leave the grantee in possession liable as a trespasser.</p>