Putnam v. How
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for' Hen-nepin county, Searle, J., presiding, (before whom, acting for a judge of the 4th district, the action was tried,) refusing a new trial after verdict for plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtGilpillan, C. J.
This is an action to recover commissions for selling or procuring a purchaser for real estate. The defendant employed plaintiffs, who were real-estate agents, doing business at Minneapolis, to sell a farm consisting of 520 acres, belonging to him, tne price for it being $6,300. The exclusive right to sell was not given to them, and therefore defendant himself might sell without being liable to them, unless he sold to a purchaser procured by plaintiffs. To be entitled to their commission (which appears to have been agreed on at 5 per cent, of the price) it was necessary that plaintiff should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Armstrong v. WannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
3Cited by16 opinions
- Dole v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Hubachek v. HazzardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Baars v. HylandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Fairchild v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Quist v. GoodfellowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.