Legal Opinion

Whisler v. Findeisen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 21, 1968No. 40868PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Murphy, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. It is contended that because there existed a genuine issue as to material facts the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs, Carl O. and Carry C. Whisler, signed a note in the sum of $19,000, payable to defendant, H. S. Findeisen, and secured by a real estate mortgage. The note was payable one year after the date of its execution, October 23, 1961, and bore interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum. A memorandum of an agreement, entered into between the parties on October 21, 1961, provided…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Donnay v. BoulwareSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  2. Rakness v. Swift and CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  3. Temple v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
  4. I. J. Bartlett Co. v. NessSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  5. Becker v. OlkonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Rathbun v. WT Grant CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  2. Schmidt v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  3. Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
  4. Hamilton v. Independent School District No. 114Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  5. City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1969

11 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