Paulson v. Reeds
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court of Richland County, A. T. Cole, J. It is the law that where a party sues on an express contract he cannot recover on an implied contract, nor on a quantum meruit. 9 Cyc. 749 et seq., Wernli v. Collins (Iowa) 54 N. W. 364; Morrow v. Board ■of Education (S. D.) 64 N. W. 1126; Ball v. Dolan (S. D.) 114 N. W. 998; 2 Enc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court of Richland County, A. T. Cole, J. It is the law that where a party sues on an express contract he cannot recover on an implied contract, nor on a quantum meruit. 9 Cyc. 749 et seq., Wernli v. Collins (Iowa) 54 N. W. 364; Morrow v. Board ■of Education (S. D.) 64 N. W. 1126; Ball v. Dolan (S. D.) 114 N. W. 998; 2 Enc. PI. & Pr. 990. The gist of appellant’s entire contention is that if respondent furnished to the appellant a buyer who was ready, able, and willing to buy the land on the terms of the listing contract, and this appellant ■so sold his land, or arbitrarily…
1DissentGrace, J.
Appeal from the judgment of the district court of Richland county, Honorable A. T. Cole, presiding by request.
This action is one brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover $1,200 and interest alleged to be due the plaintiff as commission for making sale of a tract of 800 acres of land for the defendant.
The complaint is in the usual form. It describes the land which plaintiff claims he sold for the defendant, and sets forth a cause of *345action upon an express contract. The third paragraph in the complaint roads as follows:
“That on or about the 28th day of June, 1910, the plaintiff…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gelatt v. RidgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Soules v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Hubachek v. HazzardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Sunshine Cloak & Suit Co. v. Roquette Bros.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Carnes v. FiniganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.