
    Oscar B. Hillis and another vs. James C. Stout.
    January 29, 1890.
    
      Held, that the complaint states a cause oí action.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., presiding, overruling his demurrer to the complaint, the averments of which were in substance as follows:
    Plaintiffs, who were owners' of certain described land in Ramsey county, on being solicited so to do by one Bartlett, acting for defendant, appointed,,defendant, September 10, 1886, their exclusive agent, for three days, for the purpose of selling such land for the sum of $12,500. On September 13th the defendant, through Bartlett, represented to plaintiffs that-the land could not be sold for the sum named, but that he had a purchaser for it at $11,300, and no more, which price Bartlett represented was the best that could be obtained. These representations were false when made, and known to be false by Bartlett and defendant. Plaintiffs, relying upon these representations, authorized defendant to sell the land for $11,300. On the 14th of September, 1886, Bartlett,.still acting for defendant, represented to plaintiffs that defendant had sold the land for $11,300, to one Wilson, who was to be allowed 10 days to examine the title and make payment. On September 25, 1886, plaintiffs delivered to defendant .their deed to Wilson for the land, and received the purchase price, less incumbrances and defendant’s commission. At the time the representations were made by Bartlett, defendant was negotiating for the sale of the land for a larger sum, as the result of which he sold it, September 18,-1886, to one Fallihee, for $12,500, which facts were concealed from plaintiffs. The sale to Wilson was pretended and fraudulent, and for the benefit of defendant, who was the real party in interest. Had plaintiffs known the facts, they would have refused to make the sale to Wilson, and they did not discover the facts in regard to the negotiations with and sale to Fallihee until January 25, 1889, whereupon they at once brought this suit.
    
      T. B. Palmer, for appellant.
    
      
      Lawler é.Durment, for respondents.
   Mitchell, J.

The only question raised by this appeal is whether' the complaint states a. cause of action; and all we feel'called upon to say is that, in.our opinion, it does, although it is neither to be commended nor followed as a model pleading. While the original agency of defendant was only for three days, yet, upon the facts stated in the complaint, there was an extension of the duration of the agency, modified only as to the price for which the property might be sold; and, of course, the defendant continued subject to all the duties and obligations incident to the relation of principal and agent.

Order affirmed.  