Legal Opinion · Dissent

First National Bank v. Quevli

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 9, 1931No. 27,685PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

The form of submission to the jury was unusual. There is confusion in the record. I have doubt in the righteousness of the verdict. Why Olaf Buckeye should get the 80 for nothing except that he gave a $3,500 mortgage upon it is not disclosed. Why he should make a deed in blank and not deliver it is not apparent. Why Henry J. Buckeye should give a $6,500 mortgage upon the 80, already subject to a $3,500 mortgage, if he had no interest in it, is not understood. Nor is it understood how he can object to a foreclosure of a warranty mortgage which he made. So I concur in the result.

I dissent to…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. First National Bank v. QuevliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API