Schmidt v. Baumann
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 1896, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Fredin v. Richards (Minn. 1896)
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
There is nothing in appellant’s first assignment of error. The respondent was entitled to prove that he had “procured a purchaser for the property, and the terms upon which he was willing to buy. The third assignment of error is predicated upon a mistake of fact. The court did not, in his charge to the jury, make any such assumption of facts as appellant claims. The second and fourth assignments of error are, in substance, one, viz., that the verdict is not justified by the evidence. The elaborate argument of counsel upon the facts would not be without force if addressed to the jury on the trial, or, perhaps, to the trial court on a motion for a new trial. But a reading of the entire record satisfies us that there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. This being so, and the.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.