Case Name: Richard F. Schmidt vs. John Baumann
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1886-12-13
Citations: 36 Minn. 189
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard F. Schmidt vs. John Baumann.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
Richard F. Schmidt vs. John Baumann.
December 13, 1886.
Heal-Estate Broker — Action for Commissions. — Held, that the verdict was justified by the evidence.
Action by plaintiff to recover a commission as real-estate broker for services in procuring a purchaser of certain real property. At the trial in the district court for Hennepin county, before Koon, J., plain-, tiff introduced, against defendant’s objection and exception, the testi-. mony of one Schrimpf, the purchaser alleged to have been procured by plaintiff, as to the terms of the oral bargain made by him with plaintiff in defendant’s absence. The admission of this evidence is. the subject of the first assignment of error. The plaintiff had a verdict for the amount claimed by him, a new trial was refused, and the defendant appealed.
Welch, Botkin é Welch, for appellant.
Chas. A. Ebert and John H. Long, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mitchell, J.
There is nothing in appellant's first assignment of error. The respondent was entitled to prove that he had "procured a purchaser for the property, and the terms upon which he was willing to buy. The third assignment of error is predicated upon a mistake of fact. The court did not, in his charge to the jury, make any such assumption of facts as appellant claims. The second and fourth assignments of error are, in substance, one, viz., that the verdict is not justified by the evidence. The elaborate argument of counsel upon the facts would not be without force if addressed to the jury on the trial, or, perhaps, to the trial court on a motion for a new trial. But a reading of the entire record satisfies us that there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. This being so, and the. trial court having refused to grant a new trial, this court will, in accordance with its long-established rule, decline to interfere. We refrain from entering upon a discussion of the evidence, which could subserve no good purpose.
Order affirmed.