Anderson v. Reardon
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 1951, 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
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 2008)
- General Underwriters, Inc. v. Kline (Minn. 1951)
- Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co. (Minn. 1929)
- Citizens State Bank v. E. A. Tessman & Co. (Minn. 1913)
- DeWitt v. Quarterback Sports Federation, Inc. (D. Minn. 1968)
- Salaky v. Atlas Tank Processing Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1953)
- Gould v. Weibel (Fla. 1952)
- Blair v. Espeland (Minn. 1950)
- H. S. Leyman Co. v. Piggly-Wiggly Corp. (Ohio Ct. App. 1944)
- The Mandu (2d Cir. 1939)
- Christensen v. St. James Farmers Grain Co. (Minn. 1933)
- Peterson v. Swanson (Minn. 1929)
- King v. Miller (Or. 1908)
- Klein v. Funk (Minn. 1900)
- Struckmeyer v. Lamb (Minn. 1896)
- Seybold v. Grand Forks National Bank (N.D. 1896)
- Longfellow v. McGregor (Minn. 1895)
- Price v. Moran (W. Va. 1925)
- Greer v. Equity Co-Operative Exchange (Minn. 1917)
- Anderson v. Yosemite Mining Co. (Utah 1894)
- Wines v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co. (Utah 1893)
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
One Mrs. Scherer executed to plaintiff a written assignment of the demand upon which this action was brought. It appeared from the evidence that, although the written assignment was unqualified and unrestricted in its terms, yet there was a verbal understanding between the assignor and assignee that out of the proceeds of the claim, when collected, the latter was to retain the amount due him for services already rendered, and to be thereafter rendered, by him to the former, and also pay certain debts owed by her to third parties, and then remit the balance, if any, to her. It also appeared that, when this action was commenced, the plaintiff had already collected on the demand enough to pay his own claim for services up to that time. When the plaintiff rested, the trial court dismissed the action, on the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. This was error. By virtue of the assignment the plaiptiff became the legal owner of the claim, and as such could maintain the action. It is no concern of the defendant whether the assignee of a claim receives the money on it in his own right or as trustee of the assignor. It is enough for him to know that the plaintiff is the party in legal interest, and that a recovery by him will be full protection against another suit by the assignor. There is no room for the distinction in this respect sought to be made by defendant between negotiable paper and other chosesin action. Castner v. Austin, 2 Minn. 32, (44;) Vanstrum v. Liljengren, 37 Minn. 191, (33 N. W. Rep. 555;) Elmquist v. Markoe, 45 Minn. 305, (47 N. W. Rep. 970.) It is suggested that certain exhibits which were introduced in evidence áre not made a part of the settled case. This is true, but we think that their nature and contents sufficiently appear from the “case.”
Order reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.