Legal Opinion

Vought v. Porter

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 6, 1928No. 26,166PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

Appeal from an order denying defendant’s alternative motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial. The facts are stated in Vought v. Porter, 168 Minn. 43, 209 N. W. 642.

Plaintiff in 1919 purchased from Ole Eeierson a farm. He paid $1,000 to apply on the contract. Later he paid another $1,000. He then contracted to sell the farm to one Stultz under a contract giving the purchaser possession. Stultz was unable to make payments, and a contract was made extending the time of payments but giving plaintiff the right of possession for a time. Plaintiff could not make his payments to Eeierson. He…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Vought v. PorterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Donnelly v. StepkaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API