Minnesota Supreme Court, 1891

Yeager v. Kelsey

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1891 · Dickinson

46 Minn. 402; 49 N.W. 199; 1891 Minn. LEXIS 347 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Mahon & Howard, for appellants., Draper, Davis d Hollister, 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 2005, 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.

Western Land Ass'n v. Banks (Minn. 1900)
McLaughlin v. Heikkila (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)
Schramsky v. Hollmichel (Minn. 1951)
McPheeters v. Ronning (Minn. 1905)
Johnson Bros. v. Wright (Iowa 1904)
Hildenbrand v. Lillis (Colo. App. 1898)
Hildenbrand v. Lillis (Colo. App. 1898)
Gunn v. Bank of California (Cal. 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

Dickinson, J.

It 'appears from the findings of the court, upon which alone we are called upon to review the case, that the defendant employed and authorized the plaintiffs to sell certain real estate for a specified price, and agreed to pay a stated percentage for making the sale. This action is to recover the stipulated commission. The plaintiffs negotiated with one Otis for the purchase of the property, and he paid to plaintiffs, as part of the purchase price, the sum *403of $500, whereupon the plaintiffs executed an instrument signed by them only, with the designation, “Agents,” added to their signature. This writing embraced a receipt for the money paid by Otis, stating that it was part-payment for the land, which is attempted to be described; states the full price, and when the. “balance of first payment” was to be made. It is obvious, on the face of this instrument, that Otis was not thereby obligated to purchase the land. He did not sign it. Nor did he ever assume a legal obligation to purchase the property, and, after having examined the title, he refused to. accept a deed of conveyance from the defendant. Such being the case, the plaintiffs did not sell the land, and they are not entitled to the .compensation which they were to receive for selling it.

Judgment affirmed.

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