Addressograph Co. v. Office Appliance Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division ; Guy Fulk, Judge; A broker is not entitled to Ms commission unless, before Ms agency is cancelled, tbe purchaser produced by Mm enters into a valid and binding agreement to buy. 49 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division ; Guy Fulk, Judge; A broker is not entitled to Ms commission unless, before Ms agency is cancelled, tbe purchaser produced by Mm enters into a valid and binding agreement to buy. 49 Am. St. Eep. 162. Appellee was.not employed for any definite time, hence, even without an express reservation of the right to withdraw the offer, appellant had the right to revoke his authority at will before he produeed a customer able, ready and willing to buy. 89 Ark. 415. In tbe absence of fraud by tbe principal in revoking tbe broker’s authority, the broker…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant is engaged in the City of Chicago in the business of manufacturing and selling a machine called an “Addressograph” and other office supplies, furniture and appliances. Appellee is engaged in the City of Little Rock in the business of selling office appliances and fixtures, and instituted this action in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County to recover the sum of $145.45 alleged to be due as commission on a sale made by it for appellant to the Little Rock Railway & Electric Company of an addressograph, graphotype and supplies, at the price of $727.25.
It is alleged in the complaint that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- McGavock v. WoodliefSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Crowe v. TrickeySupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Scott v. Patterson & ParkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- Blumenthal v. GoodallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Murray v. MillerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Greenspan v. MillerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Bodine v. Penn Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Silbernagel v. Hirsch Distilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Spur Bottling Co. v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.