Alton v. Merritt
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 1928, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hoffmann v. Hoffmann (Minn. 1928)
- Murphy v. Collins (Minn. 1923)
- Tabios v. Tabios (Haw. 1948)
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
This cause was here, on a former appeal where the facts are stated. 145 Minn. 426, 177 N. W. 770. On the remand of the case a trial was had on which plaintiff tendered evidence which he claimed disclosed that he had produced to defendants a purchaser ready, able and willing to purchase the land in question on the terms named by defendants; that they sold the land to him, though at a higher price than that for which plaintiff was authorized to sell. The evidence presented in the record tends to sustain plaintiff’s claim, and, further, that a purchaser for the land was procured by him within the time limit fixed by his listing contract. The court at the conclusion of the trial, both parties having rested on the evidence presented by plaintiff, directed a verdict
We have read the evidence with care and reach the conclusion that the issues presented by the pleadings should have been submitted to the jury, and that the court erred in directing a verdict. Whether plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale was made by the evidence a question of fact. Esterly-Hoppin Co. v. Burns, 135 Minn. 1, 159 N. W. 1069; Henninger v. Burch, 90 Minn. 43, 95 N. W. 578; Hubachek v. Hazzard, 83 Minn. 437, 86 N. W. 426.
In view of a new trial we refrain from discussing the evidence; it is sufficient that we have read it and find therein sufficient to raise a question for the jury, and there we dismiss the subject. The inferences to be drawn from the present state of the evidence may be overcome when defendants are heard in full.
Order reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.