BROKER. WHEN REAL ESTATE BROKER IS A MIDDLEMAN. 1. Real estate brokers are "middlemen" in respect to a sale of property only where, without having undertaken to act as agents for either party, or to exercise their skill, knowledge, or influence, they merely bring the parties together to deal for themselves, and stand indifferent between them. -Geddes v. Van Rhee, 517. REAL ESTATE BROKER'S AUTHORITY. 2. An agreement in writing between the owner of lands and a real estate broker, authorizing him to find a purchaser upon stated terms, and agreeing upon the commissions to be paid, does not authorize the broker to enter into a contract of sale binding upon the owner; and the contract involved is construed to be a contract to find a purchaser. -Stein v. Waite, 157. REVOCATION OF AUTHORITY. 3. The owner may revoke the authority of a broker with whom he has listed his lands. In this case the evidence supports the finding of the jury that there was no revocation. -Wright v. Waite, 115. 4. Where the owner gives an exclusive option to buy his land to one person and notifies the broker with whom it is listed for sale of such option, such notification may operate as a revocation of the broker's authority to sell. -Wright v. Waite, 117. RIGHT OF OWNER TO SELL. 5. The owner, who has thus listed his property, may himself sell it. In this case it is held that under the evidence and the finding of the jury he did not sell. -Wright v. Waite, 115. WHEN COMPENSATION IS EARNED. 6. Where a broker procures a purchaser for the lands of his principal, and the principal, without fraud or other wrongdoing on the part of the broker, accepts the purchaser and enters into an enforceable contract with him for the sale of the lands, the broker's compensation is earned. -Meyer v. Keating Land & Mortgage Co. 409. BROKER-Continued. 7. If the broker fraudulently misrepresents the financial ability of the purchaser, and the purchaser is unable to carry out the contract of purchase, and the principal relies upon such representation to his prejudice, he may rescind by a voluntary agreement with the purchaser, and, if a rescission is thus made, the broker will not be entitled to compensation. The evidence justifies a finding that the broker fraudulently misrepresented the financial condition and ability of the purchaser giving the principal, as against the broker, a right of rescission by agreement with the purchaser. -Meyer v. Keating Land & Mortgage Co. 409. 8. If the principal and the purchaser by mutual agreement rescind, and as a condition of the rescission, and as a part of the agreement therefor, the purchaser accepts a portion of the lands included within the contract, the transaction amounting in effect to a partial rescission by agreement and a partial purchase in accordance with the contract, the principal is liable to the broker in some amount. -Meyer v. Keating Land & Mortgage Co. 409. ACTION FOR COMMISSION-EVIDENCE. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 21. BUILDING. RESTRICTION IN DEED. See COVENANT, 5; INJUNCTION, 2. BURDEN OF PROOF. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 3; ASSOCIATION, 4; MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, 4. BY-LAW. See ASSOCIATION, 1-5; INSURANCE, 2. CANCELATION OF INSTRUMENT. In an action for specific performance by the vendee against the vendor and for the cancelation of a real estate security given by the vendee in connection therewith, it is held that the complaint states a cause of action warranting the relief asked, and the evidence sustains the findings made and the judgment based thereon. -Freeburg v. Honemann, 52. 126 M.-35. CARRIER. TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE STOCK. 1. Where, in an action to recover damages for rough handling and delay in transit of cars of live stock, one of the material issues was as to what were defendant's regular stock shipping days, on which special service was provided, it was reversible error to admit a letter from defendant's claim agent to a third party containing declarations sullicient to turn the scales in plaintiff's favor on such issue, there being nothing to show the agent's authority in the premises. -Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 352. 2. The evidence sustains the verdict for plaintiff, and the damages awarded are not excessive. -Lund v. Great Northern Railway Co. 259. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO SETTLE CLAIM. 3. G. S. 1913, § 4314, et seq., imposing upon a common carrier a penalty of $25 for the failure to settle and adjust within 60 days a claim against it, and imposing a like penalty upon a person presenting a fraudulent claim, held not unconstitutional either as class legislation, as depriving carriers of their property without due process of law, or as depriving the parties affected of the equal protection of the law. -Riskin v. Great Northern Railway Co. 138. CASES (MINNESOTA) DISTINGUISHED. Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474, 104 N. W. 289. -McColl v. Cameron, 147. Board of Co. Commrs. of Mille Lacs County v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 178 -State ex rel. v. Ryder, 102. Byers v. Minnesota Commercial Co. 118 Minn. 266, 136 N. W. 880. -Culligan v. Cosmopolitan Co. 225. Carlson v. Haglin, 95 Minn. 347, 104 N. W. 297. -Volpe v. Cedarstrand, 358, 359. Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Mottle, 115 Minn. 414, 132 N. W. 911. -Johnson County Savings Bank v. Weiby, 44. City of Red Wing v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 72 Minn. 240, 75 N. W. 223. -State v. Sugarman, 481, 482. Crocker v. Bergh, 118 Minn. 316, 136 N. W. 737. -Northwest Thresher Co. v. Herding, 187. Crooks v. Nippolt, 44 Minn. 239, 46 N. W. 349. -Mayer v. Knudsen, 86. Cruikshank v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. 75 Minn. 266, 77 N. W. 958. -Maki v. St. Luke's Hospital Assn. 14. CASES (MINNESOTA) DISTINGUISHED-Continued. First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Towle, 118 Minn. 514. 522, 137 N. W. 291. -Andrus v. Dyckman Hotel Co. 421. Handy v. St. Paul Globe Pub. Co. 41 Minn. 188, 42 N. W. 872. -Houck v. Ingles, 258. Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 52, 26 N. W. 908. -Stein v. Waite, 158. Johnson County Savings Bank v. Hall, 102 Minn. 414, 113 N. W. 1011. Kennedy v. Raught, 6 Minn. 155 (235). -State ex rel. v. Ryder, 102. Lemont v. County of Dodge, 39 Minn. 385, 40 N. W. 359. -State ex rel. v. County Board of Wright County, 211. Marshall v. Gilman, 47 Minn. 131, 49 N. W. 688. -Mayer v. Knudsen, 86. Minor v. Willoughby & Powers, 3 Minn. 154 (225). -Stein v. Waite, 158. O'Gara, King & Co. v. Hansing, 88 Minn. 401, 93 N. W. 307. Peterson v. O'Connor, 106 Minn. 470, 119 N. W. 243. -Stein v. Waite, 158. Peterson v. Steenerson, 113 Minn. 87, 129 N. W. 147. -Hansen v. Hansen, 427. Schaefer v. Schoenborn, 101 Minn. 67, 111 N. W. 843. Snyder v. Ingalls, 70 Minn. 16, 72 N. W. 807. State v. Hammond, 40 Minn. 43, 41 N. W. 243. State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296, 68 N. W. 1094. -State v. Staples, 399. State v. West, 42 Minn. 147, 43 N. W. 845. -State ex rel. v. Ryder, 102. Stearns v. Kennedy, 94 Minn. 439, 103 N. W. 212. -Olson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 232. Turner v. Fryberger, 99 Minn. 236, 239, 107 N. W. 1133, 108 N. W. 1118. 109 N. W. 229. -Andrus v. Dyckman Hotel Co. 421. CASES (MINNESOTA) FOLLOWED. Arnold v. Dauchy, 115 Minn. 28, 131 N. W. 625. -Volpe v. Cedarstrand, 358. CASES (MINNESOTA) FOLLOWED-Continued. Bean v. Lamprey, 82 Minn. 320, 84 N. W. 1016. -Van Cappellan v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Blied v. Barnard, 120 Minn. 399, 139 N. W. 714. -Blied v. Barnard, 160, 162. Carlson v. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. 63 Minn. 428, 65 N. W. 914. -Volpe v. Cedarstrand, 358. De Laurier v. Stilson, 121 Minn. 339, 141 N. W. 293. -Culligan v. Cosmopolitan Co. 221. Downing v. Lucy, 121 Minn. 301, 141 N. W. 183. -Culligan v. Cosmopolitan Co. 224, 225. First State Bank of Culbertson v. State Bank of Climax, 125 Minn. 262, 146 N. W. 1093. -Curtis v. Hutchinson, 267. Foster v. Clifford, 110 Minn. 79, 124 N. W. 632. -Culligan v. Cosmopolitan Co. 224. French v. Yale, 124 Minn. 63, 144 N. W. 451. -W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey, 461. Gibbs v. Minneapolis Fire Dept. Relief Assn. 125 Minn. 174, 145 N. W. 1075. -Minegar v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association, 332, 333. Hand v. National Live-stock Ins. Co. 57 Minn. 519, 59 N. W. 538. -Wondra v. National Life Insurance Co. 136, 137. Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, 43 N. W. 797. -Young v. Lindquist, 414, 416. Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434). -Buck v. Buck, 277. Holden v. O'Brien, 86 Minn. 297, 90 N. W. 531. -Houck v. Ingles, 257, 258, 259. Kipp v. Clinger, 97 Minn. 135, 140, 106 N. W. 108. -National Council of Knights & Ladies of Security v. Ruder, 156. Maki v. St. Luke's Hospital Assn. 122 Minn. 444, 142 N. W. 705. -Maki v. St. Luke's Hospital Association, 14. Minnesota Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Landkammer, 126 Minn. 245, 148 N. W. 305. -Minnesota Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sweet, 528. Mitchell v. Miller, 95 Minn. 62, 103 N. W. 716. -Curtis v. Hutchinson, 267. Nicholas v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. 78 Minn. 43, 80 N. W. 776. -Volpe v. Cedarstrand, 358. Picciano v. Duluth, M. & N. Ry. Co. 102 Minn. 21, 112 N. W. 885. -Dasich v. La Rue Mining Co. 194, 196, 197. |