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

  1. Francis v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  2. Meyer v. Keating Land & Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  3. Gransbury v. SaterbakSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bankers Service Co. v. SchouweilerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  2. Laramee v. Marquette Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API