Taylor v. Whitney
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Sarah Taylor, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Charles M. Pond, J., entered September 25,1893, dismissing the action on the merits. On June 11, 1856, William Taylor owned block ten (10) and other adjacent blocks in Taylor & Co.’s Addition to Winona.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Sarah Taylor, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Charles M. Pond, J., entered September 25,1893, dismissing the action on the merits. On June 11, 1856, William Taylor owned block ten (10) and other adjacent blocks in Taylor & Co.’s Addition to Winona. On that day he and wife conveyed the property to Edwin Foster and took back from him a bond in the penal sum of $8,000 conditioned that if he reconveyed to Taylor on being paid $4,000 and interest on or before October 1, 1856, evidenced by Taylor’s note for that sum, then the bond should be void. The…
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
There is so little merit in the plaintiff’s claim herein that we shall not enter into a very extensive discussion of the *388various questions discussed by counsel. In June, 1856, William Taylor, tbe husband of the plaintiff, owned the lots in question, situate in Taylor & Co.’s addition to the villagb of Winona, and they, as husband and wife, on the 11th day of June, 1856, by deed of warranty, conveyed the lots to one Edwin Foster. On the same day, Foster executed an instrument in writing to said William Taylor, which the plaintiff claims was a mortgage, and the defendant insists that it was a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- MacKall v. CasilearSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
3Cited by6 opinions
- Murphy v. DafoeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Hanson v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Wheeler v. WhitneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. EckelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Coleman v. AkersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.