Roberts v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co.

Citations

• 8 S.D. 579
• 67 N.W. 607
• 1896 S.D. LEXIS 71

Syllabus

<p>1. A written contract of agency for the sale of machinery on commission “in the immediate vicinity of S. IP., also M. county, excepting the trade tributary to J.,” also expressly reserved the right to sell to any party applying to the principal at its home office. Held, that oral evidence of a contemporaneous parol stipulation was inadmissible to prove that the ag'ency was exclusive, and that the ag'ent was to receive commissions on all sales, no matter whether made by the principal, or by its agents at J., in territory tributary thereto.</p> <p>2, An agent who has an exclusive contract for the sale of machinery in a given territory, cannot recover his commission from his principal for a sale made by another in such territory, till he has shown that he himself would have made the sale, or that he performed, in connection, ^herewith, the requirements imposed upon him by the contrast.</p> <p>3. To entitle him to more than nominal damages for the violation of the contract, the actual detriment occasioned must be shown by competent evidence, and with reasonable certainty.</p> <p>4. A trial court will not be reversed for a failure to award nominal damages unless it be essential to the determination of some legal right clearly invaded or involved.</p> <p>5. Statements concerning commissions in controversy, written to an agent by the principal’s secretary, in the nature of admissions, are incompetent, without proof that they were within the scope of the secretary’s authority.</p>