Smith v. Hoffman
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Fergus County ;• Boy E. Ayers, Judge. Action by Mary M. Smith against Sadie Hoffman. Judgment, for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and an order denying her a new trial. The contentions of plaintiff as to the principles of law applicable, are as follows: The deed (Exhibit A) and the memorandum relating to and limiting its terms and effect, must be construed as one instrument.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Fergus County ;• Boy E. Ayers, Judge. Action by Mary M. Smith against Sadie Hoffman. Judgment, for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and an order denying her a new trial. The contentions of plaintiff as to the principles of law applicable, are as follows: The deed (Exhibit A) and the memorandum relating to and limiting its terms and effect, must be construed as one instrument. (Rev. Codes, sec. 5031; Dodd v. Vucovich, 38 Mont. 192, 99 Pae. 296; Lyon v. Dailey Copper Co., 46 Mont. 108, 120, 126 Pac. 931; Chicago Trust etc. Bank v. Chicago T. & T. Co.,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hurly
In brief, the plaintiff asks for the cancellation of a deed executed and delivered by the plaintiff March 14, 1910, by reason of the alleged breach, in October, 1910, of the condition of a contract (hereinafter referred to as the memorandum or *307contract) entered into between tbe parties at tbe time of the execution of said deed, as follows:
“A written contract between two parties, Mary Smith, party of the first part, and Sadie Hoffman, party of the second part, concerning the deed to Hoffman House,, that no less than $50 per mo. be paid to Mrs. J. A. McNaught for an unlimited time and the deed…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Glocke v. GlockeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Cornish v. WoolvertonMontana Supreme Court · 1905
- Moss v. ChappellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Horner v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Barrie v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Gary Hay Grain Co., Inc. v. CarlsonMontana Supreme Court · 1927
- Henderson v. DanielsMontana Supreme Court · 1922
- Solberg v. Sunburst Oil & Gas Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1926
- McCarthy v. Employers' Fire InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1934
- Fitschen Bros. Commercial Co. v. Noyes' EstateMontana Supreme Court · 1926
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.