Dahl v. Pross
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and Authorities for Appellants. I. — There is no ground to cancel the bond — as fraud, mistake, or performance, and the bond does not run against the Plaintiff, and he is not entitled to the possession of it. Story's Equity Juris., seo. 703, 705, &c. II. — There is no ground shown to remove the lien or cloud on the real estate, the Defendant being in possession, and the Plaintiff having his remedy at law by ejectment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and Authorities for Appellants. I. — There is no ground to cancel the bond — as fraud, mistake, or performance, and the bond does not run against the Plaintiff, and he is not entitled to the possession of it. Story's Equity Juris., seo. 703, 705, &c. II. — There is no ground shown to remove the lien or cloud on the real estate, the Defendant being in possession, and the Plaintiff having his remedy at law by ejectment. Seo. 1, oh. 64, Oonvp. Stats., 595; Abbott vs. Allen, 2 John's Gases, 524; Devaux vs. The City of Detroit, 1 Harrington…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
— Atwater, J.
— On the 21st oí March, 1857, one Randall executed and delivered to Catharine Dahl a bond for a deed of certain premises in the City of St. Paul. The condition of the obligation was to execute to the said Cath-arine Dahl a good and sufficient warranty deed upon being paid the full sum of six hundred dollars, with interest at ten per cent., according to the condition of four promissory notes, bearing even date with the bond. The bond was acknowledged and recorded in the proper office. Two of the notes for one hundred dollars each, were due long previous to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Tieton Hotel Co. v. ManheimWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Younkman v. HillmanWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Belote v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1863
- Toledo Novelty Works v. BernheimerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1863