Crump v. Ingersoll
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Bam-sey county, refusing a new trial after trial by Otis, J., and judgment ordered for plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Defendants, as copartners, were engaged in the real-estate business in the city of St. Paul. The plaintiff Clay was an attorney in the same place, and acquainted with the other plaintiffs, who were residents of the state of Virginia. Defendant Ingersoll, for and in behalf of his firm, held an exclusive agency for the sale of some 400 acres of land; but of this agency none of the plaintiffs had any knowledge. Clay, upon the solicitation of the defendants, having been informed by the latter that they had the refusal of, and could *85purchase, the real estate before mentioned, for the sum of…
2Cited by9 opinions
- McKinley v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Warren v. BurtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
- Tarnowski v. ResopSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Truslow v. Parkersburg Bridge & Terminal RailroadWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
- Bruner v. MillerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.