Minnesota Supreme Court, 1889

Cremer v. Wimmer

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 24, 1889 · Mitchell

40 Minn. 511; 42 N.W. 467; 1889 Minn. LEXIS 156 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

H. C. McCartey, for appellant,, Gebhard Willrich, 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 1922, 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

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Wilson v. Geiss (Minn. 1922)
Allen v. Chatfield (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
Goodfellow v. First National Bank (Wash. 1913)
Struckmeyer v. Lamb (Minn. 1896)
McLean v. Dean (Minn. 1896)
Close v. Hodges (Minn. 1890)
Murphin v. Scovell (Minn. 1890)
Lundberg v. Northwestern Elevator Co. (Minn. 1889)

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

Mitchell, J.

Action for damages for the non-performance of a contract for the sale of land. Taking the complaint and reply together, and waiving a discrepancy in dates not here important, they show the following facts: Defendant Joseph Wimmer employed plaintiff as his agent to sell the land in question, agreeing to pay him as commission, in case he found a purchaser, all that was obtained by plaintiff over $900. Plaintiff found a purchaser, one Engel, at $1,000, and so reported to defendants, who thereupon executed to him a contract, by which they sold and agreed to convey to plaintiff personally for $900. Assuming that in taking this contract plaintiff was Engel’s agent, and that although in the name of the former it *512was made for the benefit of the latter, yet under Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 28, plaintiff might sue in his own name; for while he was not technically what would at common law have been called “a trustee of an express trust,” yet the statute referred to expressly provides that this term shall include “a person with whom or in whose name a contract is made for the benefit of another.” The court therefore erred in dismissing the action on the pleadings.

Judgment reversed.

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