Legal Opinion

Cruickshank v. Ellis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 28, 1929No. 27,389PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Plaintiff appeals from the order denying a new trial, findings having been made in favor of respondents.

The respondents Richard B. Daniel and Arthur P. Rose, real estate agents and loan brokers at Marshall, Minnesota, negotiated a loan ■ of $3,000 from plaintiff to defendant Ellis, secured by a second mortgage executed by Ellis and wife on a half section farm near Marshall, subject to $40,000 purchase mortgage, which Ellis had assumed and agreed to pay. The transaction was consummated March 1, 1920, the negotiations for the purchase of the farm and for this loan having been previously had.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jefferson v. AschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  2. Peterson v. ParviainenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  3. Rask v. NormanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  4. Feldman v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Choate, Hall & Stewart v. SCA Services, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  2. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Wigdale v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  4. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API