Minnesota Supreme Court, 1898

Dickinson Co. v. Fitterling

Dickinson Co. v. Fitterling
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 8, 1898 · Buck
72 Minn. 483; 75 N.W. 731; 1898 Minn. LEXIS 726 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Marcus P. Bayne and Frank R. Hubacheh, for appellant., B. W. Smith and G. H. Rossm&n, 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 1963, 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

Dickinson Co. v. Fitterling

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

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

BUCK, J.

On the former appeal in this case, we held that the agreement attached to the complaint herein, made between Fitterling, one party, and Dickinson & Cunnington, the other party, constituted a lease, and not merely an agreement for a lease. The case is reported in 69 Minn. 162, 71 N. W. 1030. We have now before us the agreement between Dickinson & Cunnington and the Dickinson Company, by the terms of which the latter assumed and agreed to perform all the covenants of the lease, including the payment of rent to the end of the term. Under the reported decisions of this court, Fitterling, to whom the rent was due and payable, could maintain an action on this covenant in his own name and for his own benefit. This is decisive of the case, without considering the question whether the Dickinson Company was assignee of the lease or an undertenant. There is nothing in the point that the assignment to the Dickinson Company was void, because not assented to by the lessor. This condition was for the exclusive benefit of the lessor, .and he could waive it.

Order affirmed.

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