Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/694

 686 FEDERAL REPORTER. �commission and the basis upon -which it should be computed. The two letters are to be read togetber, and, thus read, in legal effect defendant's letter was a proposition to pay plain- tiff 7^ per cent, commission upon ail goods he should sell, and ail trade he sbould make for defendant for a period of two years. The condition that the arrangement should continue for two years was evidently inserted for the plain- tiff's benefit. He did not agree that lie would sell defend- ant's goods for two years, but he reserved the right so to do because his most valuable exertions would consist in intro- ducing the defendant's goods to the favor of his customers. �In this view the agreement was not onc necessarily to be performed within a year ; but, assuming that it was not to be performed within a year, the letter of the defendant, read with plaintiff's letter, was a proposition in writing, the terms of which were fully expressed, which was subscribed by the party to be charged, and which, when acted upon, was as- Bsnted to and became the contract of the parties. �The plaintiff was under no obligation, express or implied, to devote himself exclus! vely to the sale of the defendant's goods. He was no more obligated to sell exolusively for the defendant than the defendant was to sell exclusively through the plaintiff. He was to have a commission on what gooda he sold and on what trade he made, but he was under na legal obligation to obtain a single order for the defendant. He was merely a broker, whose commissions depended upon the efficiency of his own services. The defendant had no more right to complain that plaintiff sold goods for others than it would if he had not endeavored to sell as many gooda /or the defendant as he did. �As the plaintiff did not attempt to sell any goods for the defendant after the lalter notified him that the commissions were to be discontinvied, and as he waived upon the trial any recovery for commissions upon sales which he might have made during the two years if defendant had not terminated the agreement, his recovery was limited to commissions upon trade actually made by him within the two years. It is in- ��� �