Simmons v. Oatman

Citations

• 110 Kan. 44
• 202 P. 977
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 158

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Agency — Evidence of Employment — Services Accepted. The evidence is held sufficient to support a finding that a firm of broom corn buyers invited and accepted the services of a scout, agent or broker, and thereby became his employers and were liable to him for a commission.</p> <p>2. Same — Competent Evidence to Show Employment. Evidence that an agent of the defendants asked the plaintiff to accept less than the usual commission is held to have been admissible as tending to show it was understood that the plaintiff had been employed by the defendants.</p> <p>3. Same — Action for Commissions — Theory on Which Case Was Tried. It is held that the case was tried throughout on the theory that in order for the plaintiff to recover it was necessary for him to prove that he had been employed by the defendants, and that references to á trade custom related to the amount of commission to be paid in the absence of an agreement on that point, and the services required to earn such commission.</p> <p>4. Same — Plaintiff Not a Commission Merchant. It is held that the plaintiff in the transaction upon which he sued was not acting as a commission merchant, and therefore the want of a license as such was not a bar to his recovery.</p> <p>5. Same — Federal Tax on Commercial Brokers — Effect of Nonpayment of Federal Tax. Under a Federal statute imposing a tax on commercial brokers and penalizing but not otherwise forbidding the engaging in the business without paying it, the nonpayment of such tax is not a bar to the recovery of compensation for services rendered in the course of that calling while such delinquency existed, and this regardless of whether or not a decision to the contrary would result from following the rule of an earlier case based on a Kansas statute, which has been adhered to on the principle of stare decisis.</p>