Owens v. Schneider

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiffs $3,000 for damages for fraud in the exchange of properties. Defendant Carl C. Rasmussen has not appealed.

Respondents were the owners of improved property in Long Beach. Appellants were owners of an orange grove near the city of Anaheim. Both respondents and appellants employed Rasmussen, a realtor, to effect an exchange of their properties. All parties knew of the common agency.

[594]

Rasmussen misrepresented the condition and productivity of the orange grove. Respondents believed and relied upon these misrepresentations and were damaged thereby in the sum of three thousand dollars. The trial court particularly found that appellants neither knew of nor authorized in any manner any of the misrepresentations made by Rasmussen and as far as they themselves were actually and personally concerned were innocent parties in the transaction.

Appellants urge that the findings do not support the judgment under the following rule as announced in

Fuchs

v.

Leahy,

321 Mo. 47 [9 S. W. (2d) 897] :

“ ‘Where two or more principals employ the same agent, whether as a means of dealing with one another or to protect their common interests, one cannot charge the other not actually at fault with the misconduct of the common agent. The latter owes no more duty to one than to the other; each of the principals is under an equal duty to supervise .the agent and to protect his own interest, and there is no reason why the misconduct of the agent should be imputed to one principal rather than to the other. ’ 2 Mechem on Agency (2d ed.) Sec. 2140. See, also,

Austin

v.

Rupe,

(Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 547;

Ringer

v.