Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885

Ahern v. Baker

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 24, 1885 · Vanderburgh

34 Minn. 98; 24 N.W. 341; 1885 Minn. LEXIS 171 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Linden é Williams, for appellant., Berryhill é Davison, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1923, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (Supreme Court of the United States 1944)
William Weisman Realty Co. v. Cohen (Minn. 1923)
Wetmore v. Hudson (Minn. 1921)
Elkhorn Consolidated Coal & Coke Co. v. Eaton, Rhodes & Co. (Ky. Ct. App. 1915)
White & Hoskins v. Benton (Iowa 1903)
Dindo v. Cappelletti (Vt. 1951)
Des Rivieres v. Sullivan (Mass. 1924)
Wallace v. Figone (Mo. Ct. App. 1904)
Wong Kwai v. Dominis (Haw. 1901)
Fletcher Bros. v. Nelson (N.D. 1896)
Douville v. Comstock (Mich. 1896)
Hill v. Jebb (Ark. 1892)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Vanderburgh, J.

The defendant, on the ninth day of September, 1884, specially authorized one Wheeler, as his agent, to sell the real *99property in controversy, and to execute a contract for the sale of the same. He in like manner on the same day empowered one Fair-child to sell the same land, the authority of the agent in each instance being limited to the particular transaction named. On the same day, Wheeler effected a sale of the land, which was consummated by a conveyance. Subsequently, on the tenth day of September, Fairchild, as agent for defendant, and having no notice of the previous sale made by Wheeler, also contracted to sell the same land to this plaintiff, who, upon defendant’s refusal to perform on his part, brings this action for damages for breach of the contract.

This is a case of special agency, and there is nothing in the case going to show that the plaintiff would be estopped from setting up a revocation of the agency prior to the sale by Fairchild. A revocation may be shown by the death of the principal, the destruction of the subject-matter, or the determination of his estate by a sale, as well as by express notice. The plaintiff had a right to employ several agents, and the act of one in making a sale would preclude the others without any notice, unless the nature of his contract with them required it. In dealing with the agent the plaintiff took the risk of the revocation of his agency. 1 Pars. Cont. 71.*

Order affirmed, and case remanded.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.