DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Armstrong v. Wann, 12 N.W. 345.

34 citing documents.

  • Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
  • Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
    678, 679 (1931); Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126, 127, 12 N.W.
  • Dahlgren v. Olson 37 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1949
  • Dahlgren v. Olson 37 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1949
    Dorgeloh v. Mark, 183 Minn. 265 , ; Mac-Gregor v. Persha, 174 Minn. 127 , ; Sorenson v. Gonska, 172 Minn. 499 , ; Llewellyn v. Olson, 169 Minn. 317 , ; Barr v. Olson, 147 Minn. 49 , ; Putnam v. How, 39 Minn. 363 , ; Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
  • Armstrong v. Brown Bros. Kootz Co., Inc. 277 N.W. 348 Minn. 1938
  • Armstrong v. Brown Bros. Kootz Co., Inc. 277 N.W. 348 Minn. 1938
    1932, 1934) § 1149; Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ; Hubachek v. Hazzard, 83 Minn. 437 , ; Llewellyn v. Olson, 169 Minn. 317 , .
  • Carney v. John Hancock Oil Co. 245 N.W. 367 Minn. 1932
  • Carney v. John Hancock Oil Co. 245 N.W. 367 Minn. 1932
    Baars v. Hyland, 65 Minn. 150, 151 , ; Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. *296 126, ; Cullen v. Bell, 43 Minn. 226 , ; Fosbroke v. National Exch.
  • Segerstrom v. Webb 244 N.W. 49 Minn. 1932
  • Segerstrom v. Webb 244 N.W. 49 Minn. 1932
    Dorgeloh v. Mark, 183 Minn. 265 , ; MacGregor v. Persha, 174 Minn. 127 , ; Sorenson v. Gonska, 172 Minn. 499 , ; Llewellyn v. Olson, 169 Minn. 317 , ; Barr v. Olson, 147 Minn. 49 , ; Putnam v. How, 39 Minn. 363 , ; Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
  • Dorgeloh v. Mark 236 N.W. 325 Minn. 1931
  • Dorgeloh v. Mark 236 N.W. 325 Minn. 1931
    In Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , , the rule is stated that a real estate broker, in order to be entitled to a commission, must have been the procuring cause of the sale.
  • Stead v. Erickson 234 N.W. 678 Minn. 1931
  • Stead v. Erickson 234 N.W. 678 Minn. 1931
    Defendant makes the point that plaintiff, being only an exclusive agent to sell the farm, had not the exclusive right to sell; hence defendant could himself sell without incurring any obligation to pay plaintiff commission, and cites Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , , and all the cases from other jurisdictions therein cited; Baars v. Hyland, 65 Minn. 150 , ; McDonald v. Smith, 99 Minn. 42 , ; Smith v. Preiss, 117 Minn. 392 , , Ann. Cas.
  • Llewellyn v. Olson 211 N.W. 161 Minn. 1926
  • Llewellyn v. Olson 211 N.W. 161 Minn. 1926
    We think the case is' more on its facts like those presented in Hubachek v. Hazzard, 83 Minn. 437 , ; Henninger v. Burch, 90 Minn. 43 , ; Grose v. Koller, 139 Minn. 92 , ; than in Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , , and Putnam v. How, 39 Minn. 363 , , cited by appellant.
  • Jaeger v. Glover 95 N.W. 311 Minn. 1903
  • Jaeger v. Glover 95 N.W. 311 Minn. 1903
    Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ; Putnam v. How, 39 Minn. 363 , *492 .
  • Clark v. Dayton 92 N.W. 327 Minn. 1902
  • Clark v. Dayton 92 N.W. 327 Minn. 1902
    Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ; *456 Putnam v. How, 39 Minn. 363 , ; Francis v. Eddy, 49 Minn. 447 , .
  • Fairchild v. Cunningham 88 N.W. 15 Minn. 1901
  • Fairchild v. Cunningham 88 N.W. 15 Minn. 1901
    Wylie v. Marine, 61 N. Y. 415 ; Sibbald v. Bethlehem, 83 N. Y. 378 ; Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ; Cullen v. Bell, 43 Minn. 226 , ; Putnam v. How, 39 Minn. 363 , ; Cathcart v. Bacon, 47 Minn. 34 , .
  • Hubachek v. Hazzard 86 N.W. 426 Minn. 1901
  • Hubachek v. Hazzard 86 N.W. 426 Minn. 1901
    We do not find that this precise question has been passed by this court, but the principle involved in this case is recognized in Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , , where the proposition is stated as follows: “All that plaintiff had to do, to be entitled to his commissions was to procure a purchaser ready and willing to buy upon his employer’s terms.
  • Baars v. Hyland 67 N.W. 1148 Minn. 1896
  • Baars v. Hyland 67 N.W. 1148 Minn. 1896
    Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ; Putnam v. How, 39 Minn. 363 , ; Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 535 , .
  • Cullen v. Bell 45 N.W. 428 Minn. 1890
  • Cullen v. Bell 45 N.W. 428 Minn. 1890
    301 ;) Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ( 12 N. W. Rep.
  • Dole v. Sherwood 43 N.W. 569 Minn. 1889
  • Dole v. Sherwood 43 N.W. 569 Minn. 1889
    Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ( 12 N. W. Rep.
  • Crevier v. Stephen 41 N.W. 1039 Minn. 1889
  • Crevier v. Stephen 41 N.W. 1039 Minn. 1889
    Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ( 12 N. W. Rep.
  • Putnam v. How 40 N.W. 258 Minn. 1888
  • Putnam v. How 40 N.W. 258 Minn. 1888
    The case does not differ materially from Armstrong v. Wann, 29 Minn. 126 , ( 12 N. W. Rep.