Prosser v. Manley
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county against L. B. Manley, James A. McLennan and Philip. G. ILyde for an accounting for all moneys or properties received by them as compensation for effecting a sale of certain mining properties and to require defendants Manley, McLennan and Llyde to pay any sums which might remain unpaid on the notes executed by plaintiff and guaranteed by Manley and Hyde, and to discharge plaintiff from any liability on either of such notes.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for St. Louis county against L. B. Manley, James A. McLennan and Philip. G. ILyde for an accounting for all moneys or properties received by them as compensation for effecting a sale of certain mining properties and to require defendants Manley, McLennan and Llyde to pay any sums which might remain unpaid on the notes executed by plaintiff and guaranteed by Manley and Hyde, and to discharge plaintiff from any liability on either of such notes. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Dibell, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
Plaintiffs, in the name of plaintiff Prosser, had a contract with J. George Arkoosh, owner of the “Comet” group of mining claims located in Idaho, for the purchase of such claims for the sum of $150,000. They paid $5,000 upon this contract on or before January 5, 1910. The remainder of the purchase price was payable in instalments, the first of which, in the sum of $15,000, became due January 20, 1910. They entered into this contract not for the purpose of buying the property themselves, but with the view of making & sale to others. In the early part of January, 1910, defendants…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stevens v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Smith v. KippSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Hunt v. O'LearySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Lytle v. PrescottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Petzenka v. DallimoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
3Cited by6 opinions
- Holford v. CroweSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Murphy v. CaseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Bladine v. BladineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Taylor v. Chicago Great Western RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.