Legal Opinion

Boushor v. Kuhlmann

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 21, 1924No. 24,082PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

Action to recover for services. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal from the order denying their motion for new trial.

The plaintiff entered the employ of the defendants as an automobile salesman under an oral contract. All agree that he was to have a salary of $400 a month. The plaintiff claims that in addition he was to have a one per cent commission on the gross amount received from the sale of automobiles and from the sale of accessories. The defendants claim that he was to have the commission on the sale of automobiles alone, and then only in the event that he…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Roe v. WinstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
  2. Alden v. Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  3. Siverts v. DahootSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  4. Willett v. SeerupSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  5. Kurstelska v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Farmers Merchants National Bank v. R.H. MiesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API