Hill v. Gill
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants Emily L. and A. R. Gill from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, where the action was tried by Lochren, J.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
May 20, 1886, Emily L. Gill and Samuel Barker, two of the defendants in this action, entered into a written contract, by the terms of which Mrs. Gill bargained and agreed to convey to Barker, by warranty deed, a certain lot owned by her in the city of Minneapolis, should Barker keep and perform his part of the contract.Barker, upon the other hand, covenanted and contracted to commence work upon a dwelling-house of specified dimensions on said lot within 10 days, and to complete it within 60 days from the date of said contract. He also agreed- to pay to Mrs. Gill, the sum of $1,150 and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Meyer v. BerlandiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Henderson v. ConnellyIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Laird v. MoonanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- O'Neil v. St. Olaf's SchoolSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
- Acker Post, No. 21 v. CarverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
3Cited by30 opinions
- Bohn Manufacturing Co. v. KountzeNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Carey-Lombard Lumber Co. v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
- Dougherty-Moss Lumber Co. v. ChurchillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Curtin-Clark Hardware Co. v. ChurchillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Stewart v. TalbottSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.