Legal Opinion
Overstreet v. Rother
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 17, 1922No. 22,974PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
Action to recover an agreed commission for procuring a purchaser for defendant’s bank stock. The court excluded certain evi: dence offered by the defendant as a defense and in support of his *378counterclaim, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
In Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83, 47 N. W. 452, Justice Mitchell said:
“Where a person agrees with a real estate broker to pay him a commission if he procures a purchaser for his property on specified terms, the broker, in order to entitle him to his commission, is bound to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Francis v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Meyer v. Keating Land & Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Gransbury v. SaterbakSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bankers Service Co. v. SchouweilerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Laramee v. Marquette Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929