Langston v. Hoyt

Citations

• 108 Kan. 245
• 194 P. 654
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 24

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Real-estate Agent — Action for Commissions — Defense of Fraud on the Part of Agent — Refusal of Court to Make Certain Findings of Fact — Error. In an action by a broker to recover a commission for procuring a sale of an oil lease the defense was that the sale was procured through the misrepresentation and fraud of the broker, and as there was evidence tending to sustain the defense and, further, that because of the fraud a sale made was rescinded, it was the duty of the trial court upon request of the owner to make a finding as to whether or not the broker was guilty of fraud in the transaction, and whether or not the sale was rescinded and the services of the broker became worthless because of the fraud of the broker.</p> <p>.2. Same — Misrepresentation and Fraud by Agent Forfeits His Commissions. Misrepresentation and fraud on the part of a broker in procuring a sale of property operate as a forfeiture of his commission and make him liable for resulting damages.</p> <p>■3. Same — Condonation and Confirmation of Fraud Must Be Specially Pleaded — Inadmissible Evidence. In order for the broker- to avail himself of the claim that the owner had condoned and confirmed the fraud of the broker by making a subsequent agreement with the purchaser, it was incumbent on the broker to plead the agreement and, not being pleaded, evidence of the agreement was not admissible.</p> <p>-4. Same. Where a broker relies on a subsequent agreement or conduct of the owner as an estoppel against the assertion of fraud, it must be specially pleaded.</p>