Farrell v. Howard
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Julius D. Howard, from a judgment of the District Court of St. Louis County, Stearns, J., entered September 22, 1892. On November 14, 1890, plaintiffs, Edward S. Farrell and William C. Turnbull, made a contract with defendant to purchase of him the north half of the southwest quarter of section fourteen, (14,) T. 51, it. 14, in St. Louis county, “subject to mineral reservation made by St. Paul & Duluth Railway Company.”
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Julius D. Howard, from a judgment of the District Court of St. Louis County, Stearns, J., entered September 22, 1892. On November 14, 1890, plaintiffs, Edward S. Farrell and William C. Turnbull, made a contract with defendant to purchase of him the north half of the southwest quarter of section fourteen, (14,) T. 51, it. 14, in St. Louis county, “subject to mineral reservation made by St. Paul & Duluth Railway Company.” They were to pay him $4,000 for the land, and of this they paid down $400, and received an abstract of the title, and agreed to complete the purchase in…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The plaintiffs contracted to purchase from the defendant a specified tract of land, “subject to mineral reservation made by St. Paul & Duluth Railway Company,” for a specified price, of which $400 was paid. The contract provided that if the title was mot good, and could not be made good, the contract should be void, and the money paid should be returned. The defendant’s title was •acquired by a deed from the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company, in which the conveyance was qualified by a clause “reserving and ■excepting from said described premises so much and such part thereof as are or may be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Carlson v. Minnesota Land & Colonization Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1911