McRae v. Feigh
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in. .the district court for St. Louis county against Thomas M. Feigh and Patrick Hammel, copartners doing business under the name of Thomas Feigh, to recover $41,438.29 and to have a receiver appointed to collect future royalties over and above 30 cents per ton upon all ore removed from the premises described in the complaint. Upon the death of Thomas Feigh, J. Daniel Mahoney, special administrator of his estate, was substituted defendant.
Read the full summary
Action in. .the district court for St. Louis county against Thomas M. Feigh and Patrick Hammel, copartners doing business under the name of Thomas Feigh, to recover $41,438.29 and to have a receiver appointed to collect future royalties over and above 30 cents per ton upon all ore removed from the premises described in the complaint. Upon the death of Thomas Feigh, J. Daniel Mahoney, special administrator of his estate, was substituted defendant. Thé facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Fesler, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendants’ motion for a…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
In 1905, defendant Feigh became the owner of a tract of land in Crow Wing county on which an iron mine was subsequently developed. The land was purchased through defendant Hammel, and a claim made by Hammel to an interest in the property was determined in his favor in the case of Hammel v. Feigh, supra, page 115, 173 N. W. 570, in which the decision of this court was filed on June 20, 1919.
After it became known that the land contained deposits of iron ore, Feigh desired to find a purchaser for the ore who would take a lease of *243the property and mine the ore on a royalty basis. It…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hammel v. FeighSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Hubachek v. HazzardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Lapham v. FlintSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Taylor v. Times Newspaper Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Aronovitch v. LevySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Cantieny v. BozeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941