Hustad v. Drives

It was the contention of the defendant throughout the trial that the plaintiff himself was the procuring cause of the sale; and second, that the plaintiff was *89estopped by the conduct of his sub-agent, Kittleson, from claiming any commission. In passing upon the motion for a new trial the trial court said:

“The rights of the parties were fixed by the contract. Under that contract Mr. Hustad was entitled to' commission if a sale was effected through the efforts of any one but Mr. Drives himself. Under this state of facts Mr. Kittle-son was under no obligation to advise Mr. Drives that he must…