Skaaraas v. Finnegan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Lochren, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Lochren, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. On January 10,1882, plaintiffs and the defendant (the latter doing business as Finnegan & Co.) entered into the-following agreement in writing, viz.: “Received of Ole N. Skaaraas and A. Gothron fifty dollars, as earnest money, and in part-payment for the purchase, of lot six (6) of Brott & McFarland outlots to St. Anthony, said lot being five acres, which we have this day, as authorized agents, sold and agree to convey to said O. N. Skaaraas and A. Gothron for the sum of…
1Opinion of the CourtBerrv, J.
The defendant, assuming to be a duly-authorized agent for that purpose, made and delivered to plaintiffs an unsealed instrument, whereby, as such agent, and in consideration of $50 paid, he sold and agreed to convey to plaintiffs, upon performance of conditions specified, a tract of land. Plaintiffs, by writing appended to the instrument, agreed to purchase the property on the specified terms. This action is brought to recover the damages alleged to have accrued to plaintiffs from and in consequence of the falsity of defendant's assumption of authority in the premises, and his consequent •…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Taylor v. . BradleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Westman v. KrumweideSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by12 opinions
- Moore v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Asso.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Merchants' Exchange Bank v. LuckowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Samuel H. Chute Co. v. LattaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Golden v. MeierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.