DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Smitz v. Leopold, 53 N.W. 719.

26 citing documents.

  • Tarnowski v. Resop 51 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1952
  • Tarnowski v. Resop 51 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1952
    Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , ; Crump v. Ingersoll, 44 Minn. 84 , ; Kingsley v. Wheeler, 95 Minn. 360 , ; Goodhue Farmers’ Warehouse Co. v. Davis, 81 Minn. 210 , ; Snell v. Goodlander, 90 Minn. 533 , ; City of Minneapolis v. Canterbury, 122 Minn. 301 , , 48 L.R.A.(N.
  • Doyen v. Bauer 300 N.W. 451 Minn. 1941
  • Doyen v. Bauer 300 N.W. 451 Minn. 1941
    Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , .
  • Chicago Flexotile Floor Co. v. Lane 247 N.W. 517 Minn. 1933
  • Chicago Flexotile Floor Co. v. Lane 247 N.W. 517 Minn. 1933
    Tilleny v. Wolverton, 46 Minn. 256 , ; Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , ; Goodhue F. W. Co. v. Davis, 81 Minn. 210 , ; Snell v. Goodlander, 90 Minn. 533 , ; Farmers W. Assn. v. Montgomery, 92 Minn. 194 , ; Schick v. Suttle, 94 Minn. 135 , ; Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512 , 9 *426 S. Ct. 355, 32 L. ed. 764; Maas v. Lonsto
  • Norby v. Security State Bank of Ellendale 224 N.W. 843 Minn. 1929
  • Norby v. Security State Bank of Ellendale 224 N.W. 843 Minn. 1929
    “An agent to sell cannot purchase of himself without his principal’s consent, and, if he does, the principal may repudiate; and if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser, from whom it cannot be recovered, the principal is entitled to the proceeds or their value.” Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455, 459 , .
  • Edmundson v. Phenix 178 N.W. 893 Minn. 1920
  • Edmundson v. Phenix 178 N.W. 893 Minn. 1920
    Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , ; Kingsley v. Wheeler, 95 Minn. 360 , ; Remple v. Hopkins, 101 Minn. 3 , ; Christianson v. Mille Lacs Land & Loan Co. 113 Minn. 120 , , 31 L.R.A.
  • Christianson v. Mille Lacs Land & Loan Co. 129 N.W. 150 Minn. 1910
  • Sherwood v. Lovett 129 N.W. 141 Minn. 1910
  • Sherwood v. Lovett 129 N.W. 141 Minn. 1910
    uld not enforce the agreement for a division of defendant’s commission, and nothing, therefore, passed by his assignment of the contract to plaintiff ; in other words, that the evidence conclusively shows that Hunter was secretly attempting to obtain a commission or profit from both parties while acting as the agent of each; — citing Webb v. Paxton, 36 Minn. 532 , , Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , , Merriam v. Johnson, 86 Minn. 61 , , and other similar cases.
  • Christianson v. Mille Lacs Land & Loan Co. 129 N.W. 150 Minn. 1910
    Kingsley v. Wheeler, 95 Minn. 360 , ; Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , ; Dobson v. Racey, 8 N. Y. 216 ; Stewart v. Mather, 32 Wis.
  • Kingsley v. Wheeler 104 N.W. 543 Minn. 1905
  • Kingsley v. Wheeler 104 N.W. 543 Minn. 1905
    Tiffany, Ag., 414; Holmes v. Cathcart, 88 Minn. 213 , ; Merriam v. Johnson, 86 Minn. 61 , ; Hegenmyer v. Marks, 37 Minn. 6 , ; Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455, 456 , ; Donnelly v. Cunningham, 58 Minn. 376 , ; Snell v. Goodlander, 90 Minn. 533 , .
  • Burgraf v. Byrnes 103 N.W. 215 Minn. 1905
  • Burgraf v. Byrnes 103 N.W. 215 Minn. 1905
    Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , ; Goodhue Farmers’ Warehouse Co. v. Davis, 81 Minn. 210 , .
  • Schick v. Suttle 102 N.W. 217 Minn. 1905
  • Schick v. Suttle 102 N.W. 217 Minn. 1905
    Snell v. Goodlander, 90 Minn. 533 , ; Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , ; Hobart v. Sherburne, 66 Minn. 171 , ; Holmes v. Cathcart, 88 Minn. 213 , .
  • Snell v. Goodlander 97 N.W. 421 Minn. 1903
  • Snell v. Goodlander 97 N.W. 421 Minn. 1903
    § 469; Kraemer v. Deustermann 37 Minn. 469 , ; Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , .
  • Merriam v. Johnson 90 N.W. 116 Minn. 1902
  • Merriam v. Johnson 90 N.W. 116 Minn. 1902
    Hegenmyer v. Marks, 37 Minn. 6 , ; Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , ; Crump v. Ingersoll, 47 Minn. 179 , ; Donnelly v. Cunningham, 58 Minn. 376 , .
  • Goodhue Farmers' Warehouse Co. v. Davis 83 N.W. 531 Minn. 1900
  • Goodhue Farmers' Warehouse Co. v. Davis 83 N.W. 531 Minn. 1900
    It may be conceded that it had not, yet tbe agent cannot, while engaged in tbe service of bis employer or principal, act in tbe capacity of both buyer and purchaser, without such principal’s consent; and, as stated by this court (MITCHELL, J.) in Smitz v. Leopold, 51 Minn. 455 , , in such cases “all profits made in the course oí an agency belong to tbe principal, whether they are the fruits of tbe performance or of tbe violation of the agent’s duty.” This is tbe general doctrine, and does not se