Thompson v. Salmon (1861) · DecisionDepot

Thompson v. Salmon

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1861Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An agent's ownership interest in property does not bar them from enforcing a claim for compensation for services rendered under a special agreement. Furthermore, the prior rendering of accounts that omitted a specific charge does not absolutely preclude a party from later asserting that charge.

Issues

Whether an agent's ownership interest in land prevents them from enforcing a claim for compensation for services rendered regarding that land.
Whether the prior rendering of accounts that omitted a specific charge precludes a party from later asserting that charge.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact, therefore, that he was himself an owner in the tract, does not prevent his enforcing his claim for compensation under his agreement.”

“This did not, we think, absolutely preclude him from making afterwards this monthly charge for services”

Synopsis

A tenant in common of lands, employed as agent by special agreement between himself and cotenant to take charge of the land, make sales thereof at certain prices—receiving a commission of five per cent, on sales—may sne his cotenant for the services rendered, in respect to the land, outside of selling it.

The fact, in such case, that the agent renders from time to time an account of his sales, deducting his disbursements for taxes, costs of suits, his commissions, etc., without including any charge for his other services—as superintending a large number of suits, hunting up witnesses, ascertaining the portion of land on which each squatterywas settled, etc.—does not preclude him from after-wards making a monthly charge for these latter services, whatever may be the effect of his omission to include, such charge in his accounts as against the reasonableness of the charge.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.

It seems that the plaintiff was employed by special agreement as the agent of the defendant and others to render services in respect to the land in Sonoma. The fact, therefore, that he was himself an owner in the tract, does not prevent his enforcing his claim for compensation under his agreement. The compensation to be paid does not seem to have been agreed on. The defendant at different times returned accounts of moneys received, expenses paid and commissions retained on sales of the land, but not including the charge now made. This did not, we think, absolutely preclude him from making afterwards this monthly charge for services, whatever the effect of the admission as against the reasonableness of the charge. (1 Greenl. Ev. 212 ; Loveridge v. Botham, 1 B. & P. 49.) We do not understand that these accounts were offered as stated accounts, or as proofs of accounts stated. No instruction was asked on the trial on the subject, nor were other facts than the rendering of the accounts in this connection offered. The cases cited by the appellant do not therefore apply.

Judgment affirmed.

Thompson v. Salmon

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief