Gilfillan v. Hobart
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin Bounty, Koon, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for •defendants.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
This is the second appearance of this' action in this ■court. See 34 Minn. 67, (24 N. W. Rep. 342.) A new objection is now made to the certificate of tax sale, viz., that it does not state the date of sale, as required by the statutory form. The statute ap- plieable (Laws 1874, c. 1, § 124) says that the certificate “may be-substantially in the following form.” “May” is here equivalent to-“shall.” Clark v. Schatz, 24 Minn. 300; Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn, 486, (21 N. W. Rep. 729.) “Shall be substantially in the following, form, ” requires the certificate to contain the substance of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Grimm v. O'ConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Hanson v. EastmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Keller v. HoulihanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Clark v. SchatzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Lain v. CookWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Beggs v. PaineNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- In Re Trusteeship Under Will of JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- McQuade v. JaffraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Henkel v. Pioneer Savings & Loan Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- De Laurier v. StilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.