Kempf v. Ranger
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to rescind the contract mentioned in the opinion and to recover $3,000. The case was tried before Molyneaux, J., and a jury "which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff áppealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
On April 8, 1914, defendant sold to plaintiff a building used as a garage, a leasehold interest in the land upon which it was situated, and machinery and personal property situated in the building. The consideration was $7,500. On April 15 plaintiff, claiming that he had been defrauded in the sale, undertook to rescind the contract, and later brought this action to recover what he had. paid. The jury found for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. He assigns a large number of errors. Many of them we may pass over without comment, but some errors assigned appear to us to necessitate a new trial.
1.…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Hodge v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Fargo Gas & Coke Co. v. Fargo Gas & Electric Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Sloggy v. DilworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Maxfield v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Chamberlin v. FullerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Spiess v. BrandtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Greear v. PaustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Kraus v. National Bank of Commerce of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- Guy T. Bisbee Co. v. Granite City Investing Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- STANDARD CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. v. National Tea Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.