Murphy v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Traverse county to enforce specific ■performance of a certain oral contract. The case was tried before Parsons, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law found that •defendant L. A. Anderson should be required to specifically perform the conditions of the oral agreement of June, 1912, upon payment of the purchase price by plaintiff, and that defendant Kustad had no interest in the property.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Traverse county to enforce specific ■performance of a certain oral contract. The case was tried before Parsons, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law found that •defendant L. A. Anderson should be required to specifically perform the conditions of the oral agreement of June, 1912, upon payment of the purchase price by plaintiff, and that defendant Kustad had no interest in the property. Prom an .order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
The trial court decreed the specific performance of a contract, made *108by plaintiff with defendant L. A. Anderson, for tbe purchase of the southeast quarter of section 14 in township 127 of range 47 in Traverse county; and defendants, other than the insurance company, appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
Defendant L. A. Anderson is the owner of the land, and had rented it to plaintiff for the year 1911 for a cash rental of $320. On October 31, 1911, he made a written contract with plaintiff which recited that plaintiff had rented the land for the year 1911, that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Oertel v. PierceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Bergstrom v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Janochosky v. KurrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
3Cited by12 opinions
- Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Anderson v. Graham Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Miller v. HennenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- In Re Estate of MollanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Hartigan v. Norwich Union Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.