Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shelly v. Mikkelson

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1895Published

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Morgan, J. Action by Iver E. Shelley against Mads Mikkelson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

1DissentCorliss, J.

(dissenting.) While much that is contained in the prevailing opinions in this case meets my approval, I am compelled to dissent from the decision of the court in reversing the case. The ground on which this decision is placed is that Mikkelson was justified in assuming that the quitclaim had transferred to Percival the right to the purchase price represented by the two notes. In my opinion, this view of the case is unsound. It protects Mikkelson, despite his gross negligence. When he paid| Percival for the deed, he was bound, as a prudent man, to ascer-5 tain whether Percival had a right to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Secombe v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
  2. Shelly v. MikkelsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Thomson v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  4. Potter v. . ElliceNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  5. Chinn v. ButtsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1835

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API