Weber v. Clark

Decided December 31, 1877

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1877-12-31

<p>Contract — Performance.—One who, for a stipulated price, undertakes to find a purchaser for a farm, is not entitled to anything unless he finds a purchaser willing to huy the whole farm, not even though he find a purchaser who buys a part pf it.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Clearly he was not entitled to recover anything. The contract was entire that Weber should find a purchaser for the whole farm, and that for doing so defendant should pay him one hundred dollars. Weber was not entitled to anything until he performed his part of the contract, and found a purchaser willing to buy the whole farm. This he did not do. Judgment affirmed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Bentley v. Edwards

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-12-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1935

1 district · 6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gilfillan, C. J.

¶1Defendant owned a farm of two hundred acres, and agreed to pay Weber one hundred dollars if he *355would find a purchaser for it. Weber found a purchaser for one hundred and seventeen acres of the farm, who purchased -that quantity from defendant. Weber sued for one hundred dollars.

¶2Clearly he was not entitled to recover anything. The contract was entire that Weber should find a purchaser for the whole farm, and that for doing so defendant should pay bim one hundred dollars. Weber was not entitled to anything until he performed his part of the contract, and found a purchaser willing to buy the whole farm. This he did not do.

¶3Judgment affirmed.