Springsteen
Springsteen v. Lewis
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Ross, J.
(dissenting).
From the judgment of affirmance in this case I respectfully dissent. The second amended complaint upon which the action was tried in the court below, and upon which recovery was there had by the plaintiff, alleges, among other things:
That on or about September 28, 1912, the defendants to the action, through their authorized agent in writing, one H. H. Springsteen, entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff Lewis, by which he was employed “as their sole agent or broker in negotiating for the optional sale of certain placer mining claims (specifically described) owned by them.”
That thereafter, and on or about the-day of June, 1913, “in confirmation of said oral agreement and to evidence the terms thereof, the plaintiff and defendants, by and through their said agent, signed, executed, and delivered a written contract, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked ‘Exhibit A/ which said contract was by mutual consent dated as of September 28, 1912, the date of the original agreement aforesaid.”
In view of those express allegations of the complaint, it is manifest that we must look to the said exhibit to see what the contract between…
Lead Opinion
Gilbert, J.
(after stating the facts as above).
The defendants contend that the power of attorney was not sufficiently broad in its scope to authorize their agent to employ the plaintiff, and they cite authorities to the doctrine that a broker with special authority to sell real estate has no implied power to delegate his authority to another or to employ a subagent. Here there was no delegation of authority other than the employment of a sub-agent to do a certain designated act, and under a general power of attorney such as that here involved, which was a power to conduct and prosecute all of the principals’ business and to dispose of all their property, it is well settled that the agent has power to employ another to find a purchaser for the principals’ real estate. “An agent authorized by the owners to sell lands may, having exercised his own discretion as to price and terms, after an examination of the property, delegate to his subagent authority to find a purchaser.” 2 C.J. 689; Renwick v. Bancroft, 56 Iowa, 527 , 9 N.W. 367 ; Gold v. Serrell, 6 Misc. 124 , 26 N.Y.S. 5 . At the time of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants through the latter’s agent, the defend *806 ants…