Johnson v. Spear

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Johnson v. Spear

113 N.W. 1134, 102 Minn. 516, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 494

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 15, 1907

DocketNos. 15,371—(130)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 N.W. 1134 (Johnson v. Spear) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Spear, 113 N.W. 1134, 102 Minn. 516, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 494 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Action to recover a commission alleged to have heen earned by plaintiff on the sale of certain real estate for defendant. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appealed. The only question presented for consideration is whether the trial court erred in finding certain facts outside the issues made by the pleadings, and whether the conclusions of law are sustained by the findings of fact.

The rule laid down in Jones v. Wilder, 28 Minn. 238, 9 N. W. 707, controls the case. It was there held that, where there is no case or bill of exceptions, this court will presume that the findings of the trial court were within the issues litigated by the parties on the trial. In the case at bar there is no case or bill of exceptions, and under that decision we are bound to assume that the question whether plaintiff had an exclusive agency for the sale of the property was litigated on the trial by consent. The conclusions of law are fully supported by the findings of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Action to recover a commission alleged to have heen earned by plaintiff on the sale of certain real estate for defendant. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appealed. The only question presented for consideration is whether the trial court erred in finding certain facts outside the issues made by the pleadings, and whether the conclusions of law are sustained by the findings of fact.

The rule laid down in Jones v. Wilder, 28 Minn. 238, 9 N. W. 707, controls the case. It was there held that, where there is no case or bill of exceptions, this court will presume that the findings of the trial court were within the issues litigated by the parties on the trial. In the case at bar there is no case or bill of exceptions, and under that decision we are bound to assume that the question whether plaintiff had an exclusive agency for the sale of the property was litigated on the trial by consent. The conclusions of law are fully supported by the findings of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.W. 1134, 102 Minn. 516, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-spear-minn-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack