Legal Opinion

Vought v. Porter

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 25, 1926No. 25,221PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion in the alternative for judgment non obstante or a new trial.

The facts leading up to and surrounding the alleged oral contract upon which the verdict was based are, in substance, these:

The deceased, Ole Reierson, had acted as agent in selling a farm of 160 acres in Iowa, near LeRoy this state, for Harry Peterson to plaintiff under a contract at the price of $23,200; $1,000 cash; $8,200 to be paid March 1, 1920, and balance by assuming two mortgages for $14,000 existing against the farm. The payment of March 1, 1920, was not met. In the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mathwig v. StrandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  2. Graceville State Bank v. HofschildSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  3. Smith v. GloverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  4. Fisher v. PlimptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
  5. Bringgold v. StuckySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hatlestad v. Mutual Trust Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
  2. Schmitt v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  3. Vought v. PorterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API