The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 62
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
272 FEDERAL REPORTER
 It appears, too, that the defendant had entered into a bunker
coal agreement with the British government, by which it agreed to
comply with certain instructions and rules of the government in the
operation of its vessels, and agreed that it would never charter any
vessel to any one to whom the British government objected. The an-
swei to the complaint alleges, referring to the above agreement, that
"this fact was or should have been known by the plaintiff." It could
not have been known to him, however, unless Gaston, Williams &
Wigmore, or the defendant, or the British authorities disclosed it.
The evidence does not show that the information was communicated
to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff himself testified that he had "n.
knowledge of the bunker agreement," by which we understand him to
mean that he had no knowledge of it until after the contract of sale
was executed by the vendor and vendees. If a principal enters into an
agreement which restricts his right to sell, it is his duty to disclose it to
his broker; and if he makes nd such disclosure, and the broker has
no knowledge of it, the broker certainly cannot be deprived of his
commission because the principal fails to complete the sale on that
The fact of the matter is that it never occurred to the principal, at
the time he employed his broker, the plaintiff, nor, for that matter,
until after the contract of sale was signed by it and the purchasers,
that there might be an obstacle to the final consummation of the sale
by the refusal of the British authorities to approve it. The fault was
that of the seller, and not that of the broker. The broker performed
all that he was required to do by the terms of his employment, and
the seller cannot be heard now to defeat his right to his commission by
setting up its own failure to make the disclosure as a bar to his re-
The broker produced two purchasers, and one only was objected to,
and the one who was objected to assigned all his interest in the con-
tract of sale to the other, who was able, ready, and willing to perform.
Notwithstanding the assignment, the vendor refused to proceed with
the sale under the contract which it has executed. With its reasons
for doing so we are not now concerned. Mr. Austin, the general man-
ager of Gaston, Williams & Wigmore, testified that at that time the
price of vessels was rising, and that his concern was getting offers for
the ship "right along." In reference to one of the offers he was ques-
tioned and answered as follows:
"Q. Was it as high as $575,000? A. I enn tell from my papers; somewhere
It does not appear whether or not that fact influenced the defend-
[5, 6] It may be proper for us to say more explicitly, although it
might be inferred from what has been already stated, that if it be
assumed that the broker was impliedly bound under his contract of
employment to produce as purchasers of the ship persons under no
legal disability which precluded them from entering into a binding
contract of sale that the question as to whether such persons were pro-
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/84/: accessed August 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.