Legal Opinion

Bey v. Keeping

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 27, 1934No. 29,873PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LORING, Justice.

In an action by the vendor to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale of a farm, the plaintiff had findings in his favor, and the defendant vendee has appealed from an order denying his motion for amended findings or for a new trial. The order denying the motion for amended findings is not appealable, and we consider only the motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff’s farm, which he wished to sell, is situate near the village of Hawley, where the defendant resides. It appears that in the spring of 1931, in which year are all the dates herein referred to, the parties…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kileen v. KennedySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
  2. Rahm v. CummingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  3. Brearley v. SchoeningSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lake Company v. MolanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  2. Bruce Bergstrom v. Sambo's Restaurants, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
  3. Rose v. Guerdon Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  4. Schwinn v. GriffithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  5. McLaughlin v. HeikkilaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API