Francis v. Eddy
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants, E. W. Eddy and Judith S. Walsh, from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of Minneapolis, Mahoney; J., made January 13, 1892, refusing a new trial, after verdict for plaintiff for $262.50. The discussion in this court was upon the evidence, —whether it sustained the verdict.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover compensation, as a real-estate broker, for procuring a purchaser for a lot belonging to the defendants. The evidence discloses substantially the following state of facts:
The lot had been on the market about two years. It was, and during all that time had been, listed for sale by defendants with another broker, named Tabour. Plaintiff solicited defendants to list it with him, and to give him the exclusive sale of it. Defendants did list it •with him under a contract to the effect that, if he procured a pur•chaser “at such price as defendants should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. GrimesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by13 opinions
- Boyd & Williams v. J. J. Watson & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Leadville Mining Co. v. HemphillArizona Supreme Court · 1915
- Wheelan v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- State v. GrimesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Burdon v. BriqueletWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.