Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885

Little v. Rees

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 21, 1885 · Diokinson

34 Minn. 277; 26 N.W. 7; 1885 Minn. LEXIS 218 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

S. Meyers, for appellant., Smith & Reed, for respondents.

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

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Pond v. Anderson (Iowa 1950)
Pleasant v. Arizona Storage & Distributing Co. (Ariz. 1928)
In re American Range & Foundry Co. (D. Minn. 1926)
United Sales Agency v. Luck Land Co. (Minn. 1923)
William Weisman Realty Co. v. Cohen (Minn. 1923)
Westfall v. Ellis (Minn. 1919)
Titus v. Whiteside (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1916)
McComb v. Von Ellert (New York Court of Common Pleas 1894)
Greene v. Hollingshead (Ill. App. Ct. 1891)

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

DioKinson, J.

The court found the facts to be that the defendant contracted to pay the plaintiffs $200, ($50 of which was afterwards *278remitted by tbe plaintiffs,) “if they would find some person with whom he could trade said lot for other property, defendant agreeing to make the trade himself if the proper person were produced by plaintiffs.” The finding is further to the following effect: The plaintiffs performed the prescribed condition on their part, by introducing to the defendant as a purchaser one Peake, with whom the defendant entered into a contract under seal for the conveyance of the land in exchange for certain other lands which Peake agreed to convey to the deferidant. After the terms of this contract had been agreed upon, and immediately before the written contract was executed, the plaintiffs “told defendant that they would not charge any commission for their services unless the trade went through and was consummated.” The court also finds, in terms, that “said trade was never consummated, and that the same failed through the fault of said Peake.” The obvious import of the statement that the trade was never consummated, is that the contract between the defendant and Peake was never performed.

The appellant contends that the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is erroneous, for the reason that the contract was so modified that the plaintiffs’ right to compensation depended upon the performance of the contract made with Peake. The fact, however, of such a modification of the contract does not appear. It is not found by the court, nor does it follow as a legal result from what is found, viz., that the plaintiffs “told defendant” as above recited. This promise or statement was made after the contract had been entered into, and the plaintiffs, as is found, “had then done and completed all that was required of them under their contract with defendant.” So far as appears, the promise was a mere naked agreement without consideration, and could have no legal effect.

There is no merit in the point that the court found some facts not alleged in the pleadings.

Judgment affirmed.

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