Legal Opinion
Kimm v. Griffin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided December 24, 1896No. Nos. 10,351—(238)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of tbe district court for Dakota county, in favor of defendant, entered in pursuance of the order of Crosby, J.
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
Action to recover one-balf of tbe cost of a party wall erected under a sealed agreement. Tbe stipulated facts are as follows:
“First. That on the 17th day of November, 1869, the plaintiff was. the owner in fee of the middle one-third of lot one (1), block thirteen (13), in the city of Hastings, and described in the complaint in this action, and that one Peter Smith was the owner in fee of the west one-third of said lot one (1), block thirteen (13), which adjoins said middle one-third of said lot one on the west. Second. That on said 17th day of November, 1869, said Theodore Kimm and said Peter…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- King v. WightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Richardson v. TobeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ferguson v. WorrallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- National Life Insurance Co. of Montpelier v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Jones v. MonroeTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Rugg v. LemleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Fair Building Co. v. Wineman Realty Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.