Townsend v. Fenton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the decision of this court (30 Minn. 528) holding the complaint insufficient, the cause was remanded to the district court for Murray county, and plaintiff served an amended complaint, in substance as follows: The defendant is owner in fee of a described quarter-section of land.
Read the full summary
After the decision of this court (30 Minn. 528) holding the complaint insufficient, the cause was remanded to the district court for Murray county, and plaintiff served an amended complaint, in substance as follows: The defendant is owner in fee of a described quarter-section of land. On January 20, 1881, the defendant was indebted to one Darms in a sum exceeding $1,866.70, and on that day, for part of the debt, executed and delivered to Darms his promissory note payable two years thereafter, with interest at 10 per cent. On November 30, 1881, plaintiff, defendant and Darms made an oral…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This court having, on a former appeal in this case, (30 Minn. 528,) held that the complaint was bad for the reason that it did not show a part-performance of the oral agreement to convey land, declared on, such as would take it out of the operation of the statute of frauds, the plaintiff amended, and the case now presents the question of the sufficiency of the amended complaint. The most important amendment is the allegation that defendant was insolvent at the time of making the oral agreement, which fact was known to plaintiff, and hence that he would not have accepted the transfer of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Townsend v. FentonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by7 opinions
- Tatge v. TatgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Bennett v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Trebesch v. TrebeschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Chapel v. ChapelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Werntz v. BolenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.