Legal Opinion
Summers v. Midland Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 4, 1926No. 25,399PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.
Appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial.'
The record presents the inquiry:
“Is an easement, which restricts the use of the property involved, acquired by condemnation proceedings subsequent to a contract for a deed, wherein the purchaser is given possession of the property, such an incumbrance as to entitle the purchaser to rescind and recover what he has paid under the contract upon the ground of a breach of the covenant as to incumbrances?”
The contract for deed was in the ordinary form. It called for instalment payments. After its execution the city of Duluth condemned the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Jacksonville, Mayport, Pablo Railway & Navigation Co. v. HooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Day v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. HoytSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Woodward v. McCollumNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1907
- Randall v. ConstansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In Re Petition of S. R. A., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- Mesich v. Board of County Com'rs of McKinley Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1942
- Rishel v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
- Arko Enterprises, Inc. v. WoodDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
- Village of Minneota v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.