Legal Opinion

Herman v. Kelehan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 1, 1942No. 33,120PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Loring, Justice.

In a suit to compel specific performance of a written contract to make á will, the trial court found for plaintiff and ordered specific performance. From the judgment entered after denial of defendants’ motion for a new trial, all but the defendant Edward J. Herman appeal to this court.

Appellants’ principal contentions are, first, that the evidence does not sustain a finding that there was an effective contract to make a will which was acted upon by the parties, and, second, assuming that there was such a contract, that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance but…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Jannetta v. JannettaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  2. County of Ottawa v. ZwagermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Hanson v. BowmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  4. Martin v. HurlbutSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
  5. Kuhn v. SohnsIllinois Supreme Court · 1926

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Alsdorf v. SvobodaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  2. Clark v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  3. Goette v. HoweSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. State v. RileySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  5. Downing v. MaagSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943

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

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

Powered by the Exa API