Marble v. Bang
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, L. L. Marble, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, J. D. Ensign, J., made October 29,1892, denying his motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, L. L. Marble, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, J. D. Ensign, J., made October 29,1892, denying his motion for a new trial. The defendant, Andrew Bang, owned the south half of the northwest quarter, and the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, of section twenty-nine (29) T. 58, R. 18, on the Mesaba Range, and on February 3, 1892, made plaintiff Ms exclusive agent until April 1st then next, to sell it for him. - If he sold it, Bang was to have $2,000 and one-tMrd of all that was obtained over $3,000. Marble was to have the residue for his…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The cause of action, if any, alleged in the complaint, is for commissions earned by procuring a purchaser for defendant’s property, ready and willing to buy on the terms authorized, and not for damages for a revocation of plaintiff’s agency before the expiration of the time named in the agreement of the parties. This disposes of plaintiff’s contention that he was entitled to at least nominal damages on the latter ground.
Construing the agreement (Exhibit A) most “favorably to the plaintiff,—that he would have earned his commission upon producing a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Snell v. SnellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by4 opinions
- Westfall v. EllisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Snell v. SnellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Baker v. BrundageSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Bergh v. StanekSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921