Harding v. Texoleum Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtQuinn, J.
Plaintiff was engaged at Minneapolis, as a sales agent for manufactured articles upon commission within the state of Minnesota. *56The defendant was engaged in tbe manufacture and sale of rugs and mats, with its factory and offices in New York. In November, 1919, the parties entered into a written agreement, whereby plaintiff was to act as the sales agent for defendant in the state of Minnesota, upon a commission basis. This action was brought to recover for services under that agreement. At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony defendant rested without offering any testimony, and the court…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jamestown Business College Assn. v. . AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Sheldon v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
- Aultman, Miller & Co. v. CliffordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Gould v. Boston Excelsior Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1898
- Wyman v. WinslowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Lentz v. PearsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Dayton Co. v. Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Floor Decorators' UnionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949