Harris

This was an action to recover five thousand dollars as brokerage for negotiating a contract. The complaint contained two counts, but the plaintiff elected to go to trial upon a quantum meruit. The trial court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaiutiff appeals.

The principal question discussed by counsel relates to the authority of the person who employed the plaintiff.

The defendant was a corporation “to construct and operate a flume for the transmitting of water.” At the period in question its flume had not been constructed.

The engineering work was being done, and the business of acquiring rights of way, etc., was being attended to. In the beginning of August, 1886, the company sent its superintendent, one W. E. Robinson, to San Francisco to negotiate a contract for the construction of the flume. He employed the plaintiff as broker to find a contractor, and through the plaintiff’s exertions a suitable person was found. The claim is for compensation for services as such broker.

1. The defendant cannot be held on the ground of ostensible or apparent authority. There is evidence to the effect that in the county of San Diego Robinson was permitted by the company to do…