Converse v. Jenson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Plaintiffs appeal from two orders. The order refusing to amend the findings of fact is not appealable and need not be referred to; but the order denying a new trial, besides presenting for review rulings at the trial, also challenges certain findings and the refusal to amend them.
The controlling facts will be stated briefly.
Plaintiffs are husband and wife. In 1916 they lived in Detroit, Minnesota, on a lot which will be hereafter called the “business block.” It was owned by the wife, and was in 1916, and has ever since been, the homestead of the parties. In that year a business block was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. ZellmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Travers v. DorrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Rooney v. KoenigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Smith v. LytleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
3Cited by5 opinions
- Minneapolis Investment Co. v. National Security Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Vogt v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
- Hector v. Royal Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Quevli Farms, Inc. v. ConnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929