Minnesota Supreme Court, 1931

Delong v. W. G. Schanke Company, Inc.

Delong v. W. G. Schanke Company, Inc.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 27, 1931 · PER CURIAM.
235 N.W. 17; 182 Minn. 621; 1931 Minn. LEXIS 1232 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

E.E. Eder , for appellant. O.J. Ertsgaard and Lena Brown , 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 1947, 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

Delong v. W. G. Schanke Company, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites 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

PER CURIAM.

On a trial in the municipal court of Minneapolis without a jury the plaintiff prevailed on a cause of action arising out of a transaction wherein she claims that she engaged the defendant to purchase for her 20 shares of Cities Service stock, paying down the sum of $500 on the purchase. It was the contention of the defendant that the transaction was one between principals and that the $500 was a down payment on an uncompleted purchase. Plaintiff contends that she was engaging defendant as a broker to purchase the stock in open market.

The trial court found in accordance with plaintiff’s theory that' the plaintiff paid $500 over to the defendant to be used in the purchase but that the defendant never bought the stock for the plaintiff. Defendant retained the $500.

In our opinion the findings of the trial court are sustained by the evidence, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the $500.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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